Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free grammar ?

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> Jeffrey R. Carter schrieb:
>> > X (Y) cannot represent a type cast because Ada does not have anything
>> > called "type cast".
>>
>> Not quite, if you consider "type cast" is a unchecked bit pattern copy -
>> so if you define:
> 
> Jeffrey is correct; it is not a "type cast", it is a "type conversion"
> and there is no such thing as "Ada.Unchecked_Cast". Yes, this is nit-
> picking; why would we choose Ada if we didn't care about details and
> wording?

(X)Y copy a bit pattern.
reinterpret_cast <X>(Y) copies a bit pattern.
Unchecked_Conversion (Y) copies a bit pattern.

Just because there are three different words does not mean they are
different concepts. Just as Red, Rot and Rouge are three different words
describing the same colour.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com