From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Sep 93 15:51:51 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!progers@ucbvax.Berke
ley.EDU  (Pat Rogers)
Subject: Re: Generic Pointer Type
Message-ID: <1993Sep8.115151.903@sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7SEP199313180978@cl2.cl.uh.edu> SWEN1FBE@cl.uh.edu writes:
>>
>>  [deletia]
>
>Part of the philosophy behind Ada is the idea that untypeid pointers are
>a bad idea.  (however, it does support addressing some.)
>
>Even more important:  conversion between two access types goes outside
>the standard for ada--ie, it requires unchecked_conversion.  Any suggestions 

It is difficult to understand how using Unchecked_Conversion "goes outside
the standard for Ada" when the standard defines Unchecked_Conversion...

Granted that unchecked programming is not something to do everywhere. But 
this idea that Unchecked_Conversion and Unchecked_Deallocation are somehow
responsible for the invocation of demons is rather unrealistic.  They
have their uses.  Hide them and get on with it.

pat rogers
sbs engineering