On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:52:34PM -0500, Ken Bloom wrote: > On Sunday 04 June 2006 13:58, Micah J. Cowan wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:18AM -0500, Ken Bloom wrote: > > > On Sunday 04 June 2006 09:05, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > > > On Sat 03 Jun 06, 10:27 PM, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > Cue, the **Fundemental axiom of the C++ type system**, stated > > > > > as follows: > > > > > A* is automaitcally convertable to B* if and only if A is a > > > > > B. (Likewise for pass by reference). > > > > > > > > > > (this is my own generalization though, and there may actually > > > > > be exceptions) > > > > > > > > Although this was interesting to read, it doesn't say much other > > > > than to restate my observation in a more sophisticated way. > > > > > > IMO, all that matters is that the axiom is the reason. > > > > Except the axiom is rather far from the truth, only an ideal. > > > > C++ is more strongly typed than C. I am not a language theorist, but > > I believe it is still not considered "strongly typed". > > > > The ability to silently convert from int to char (your compiler might > > actually complain about it in some circumstances: a compiler is > > allowed to complain about whatever the hell it wants, but there's no > > requirement to here, and in most cases, it won't) illustrates one > > exception, certainly. > > That's not an IS_A relationship. That's automatic conversion.
That was exactly my point. However, on looking back, I misread your axiom to say "A is automatically convertable to B if and only if..." My bad. -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech