Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!puma!andrew.ATL.GE.COM!jnixon
From: jnixon@andrew.ATL.GE.COM (John F Nixon)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <220@puma.ge.com>
Date: 12 Mar 90 13:27:46 GMT
References: <4417@hydra.Helsinki.FI> <8314@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: news@puma.ge.com
Lines: 27

billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes:
>   The "new" mechanism will generally be used when we want to put more 
>   constraints on the new type than we had specified for the base type:
>      type Weekday is new Day range Monday..Friday;

What about this?
	type Weekday is Day range Monday..Friday

>   This creates the type Weekday, which is distinct from (and incompatible
>   with) the type Day.  If we wanted to make them distinct but compatible:
>      subtype Weekday is Day range Monday..Friday;

Would this break (ahhhh, I mean cause problems, errrr, well...)?
	subtype Weekday is new Day range Monday..Friday

Wouldn't the programmer tend to get confused (I *think* both are illegal)?
Would it not be better to say

	new type X is Y		-- incompatible type declaration
	    type X is Y         -- compatible type declaration

Gee, this Ada stuff looks mighty confusing; maybe someone should write
adadecl ;-)

--
----
jnixon@atl.ge.com                    ...steinmetz!atl.decnet!jnxion