From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d313337c39c5dd5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Bob Fletcher" <bob@radge.globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: run-time type identification
Date: 1998/09/03
Message-ID: <01bdd742$5952e4a0$f330ea9e@ukp03332>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 387484398
References: <01bdd72e$49ee66b0$f330ea9e@ukp03332>
 <m367f56601.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
Organization: Logica UK Limited
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Don't you lose the extra values associated with the derived class though?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that's what would happen.

Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote in article 
> 
> A downcast from a class-wide type nearer the root to a type (specific or
> class-wide) more away from the root is perfectly legal in Ada95.  No
> Unchecked_Conversion is necessary.
>