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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Dmitriy Anisimkov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger. Date: 17 Jul 2005 10:13:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1121620423.900805.215150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1120474891.635131.216700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121573057.159416.274980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.162.49.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1121620429 6480 127.0.0.1 (17 Jul 2005 17:13:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:13:49 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.162.49.9; posting-account=t4CEmgwAAAA8dL2naG2k3iz_rN__dZy3 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3648 Date: 2005-07-17T10:13:43-07:00 List-Id: << >No, this checking is too much overhead. Too much overhead, compared to what? >> Ok. I thought that you told about checking in pragma Assert (not Has_Element (C2)); pragma Assert (not M.Contains ("two")); if you told about new checking inside of Replace_Element (C, -2); -- dangling cursor it is not "too much". << This is a false analogy, since the name of the operations are To_Pointer and To_Address. Nary an "unchecked" in site... >> Isn't To_Pointer equivalent to Unchecked_Conversion from Address to Access ?