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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0475d4d02ffd8d9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: To collection (GNAT bug)
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <1ulni4ytiwx9b$.h3yhtyxju4op.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1fo8mdcya4lc1.1xzuim6fz5a6a.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <mKETg.218023$1i1.149463@attbi_s72>
	 <ioiqz1x0cf1a$.o6bzardt4n7d.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <OAUTg.1003007$084.622552@attbi_s22>
	 <13weuafrdg7cx$.zkechwsuxyfw.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <R%dUg.1005204$084.190515@attbi_s22>
	 <87fgklu009fm$.1jy0dch55kk6a.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <5ByUg.89026$aJ.31485@attbi_s21>
	 <1ulni4ytiwx9b$.h3yhtyxju4op.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1159954035.16821.10.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:27:15 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:20:37 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5b72230c.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Go:_;cn<WSClU`@c^jLCbJ4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRAFl8W>\BH3YBd9ABF?N8WHJTiQOITnENoBFU`4:K;4eRG5hAkEHcjW^GNOdBLLLiG2I
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6859
Date: 2006-10-04T11:20:37+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 10:01 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:


> ARM does not prohibit reasonable implementations of Unchecked_Conversion.
> OK, it does not enforce them either.

I guess that the makers of GNAT might argue that their
compiler handles internal representations of objects
in a quite reasonable way, that is, reasonable as considered
by their Ada customers and by a compiler back-end writer.

If you would like to have user level internal data structure
representation interfaces for arrays, pointers, etc.,
how do you envision a suitably modified Ada compiler to guarantee
separate compilation, optimization, and LRM-correct
behavior in the presence of user-defined internal representations?



Georg