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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
  grammar ?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21> <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
 <37b7e369-01c8-4adf-8d1e-c40fa7e51cea@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <w16xwppnjx1l.1rshjei30h1qu.dlg@40tude.net> <u1w7574hb.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:44:37 +0100
Message-ID: <1720qz4u4x9ya$.17x37gssp6nps.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Feb 2008 11:44:38 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93bb92fe.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=hRIU<KdUAU]aoembcbF;DQA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYcZEi1Zi84:XWRXZ37ga[7ZjTA67ckJ=XU;YCN[[:P5XRm@m];NfDS;\
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19967
Date: 2008-02-22T11:44:38+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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