Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.oz.au (Richard O'keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <2967@goanna.oz.au>
Date: 9 Mar 90 00:14:38 GMT
References: <259@eiffel.UUCP> <1990Mar1.172526.28683@utzoo.uucp> <849@enea.se> <5880@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 22

In article <5880@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>,
rimvallm@jupiter.crd.ge.com (Magnus Rimvall) writes:
> In article <2963@goanna.oz.au> you write:
> >	declare
> >	    subtype apple  is integer;
> >	    subtype orange is integer;

> Obviously, you either know very little about Ada or you deliberately
> try to misinform the reader.

Those are fighting words.  I shall reply in kind:
surely you either know very little about C or you are being deliberately
insulting.

The point is that I *do* understand Ada well enough to show CORRECTLY
what the Ada equivalent of the C fragment in question is.  Rimvall's
suggested version using NEW is *not* expressible in C *nor* in Pascal.
What I was saying is that the C typedef
	typedef int apple;
is the equivalent of
	subtype apple is integer;
How does this count as ignorance or misinformation?