home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!buster!jpunix!digsol!newton
- From: newton@digsol.jpunix.com (Michael Nichols)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
- Subject: Re: Comparing record types
- Message-ID: <iRoeuB1w165w@digsol.jpunix.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:07:41 CST
- References: <1e6s51INNp16@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
- Organization: Digital Solutions, Inc. Houston, TX.
- Lines: 29
-
- holland@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rich Holland) writes:
-
- > sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
- >
- > >>That's right. '=' only applies to atomic types (scalar, floating point,
- > >>string, set).
- >
- > >I wouldn't call sets and strings 'atomic', but that's nit-picking.
- >
- > Okay, someone wanna clue me in here? What's an "atomic" type? I'd only
- > heard of ordinal and scalar until now...
- >
- > --
- > Rich Holland | INTERNET: holland@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
- > 100 Jardine Terr, Apt A7 | BITNET : holland@ksuvm
- > Manhattan, KS 66502-3357 | UUCP : ...!rutgers!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!holland
- > char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
-
- I think a better term would be "non-structured" data type. By atomic
- element (sounds a lot like LISP) he means a data element that consists of
- one data element only. Actually, if you really want to get technical,
- strings are not atomic, because they are really an array of chars. But,
- because most compilers handle them in a way which makes them seem like
- simple data elements (kinda like BASIC), one might consider them to be
- atomic, but they are actually structured in definition. (You C
- programmers know what I mean.)
-
- Mike Nichols
- newton@digsol.jpunix.com
-