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

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:57:52 -0500, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:34:34 -0800 (PST), 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".
>>
>> ARM 13.7.2.
> 
> I don't see the phrase "type cast" in that section; what is your
> point?

I thought it was about whether Ada has a thing semantically equivalent to
static type cast of C++, and the (true) point was that Unchecked_Conversion
could not always serve this purpose.

> Jeffrey's point was about the specific phrase "type cast"; that is
> _not_ defined by the Ada language.

Then his wording was unhappy. What X(Y) could represent is not directly
related to what Ada "has" or "calls." For example it can represent a
traffic light, tooth-powder or in fact whatever.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de