From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Gem 39 - compiler specific?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:06:12 +0200
Date: 2009-09-04T15:06:12+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1pi1b5q7qu0q5.sgsbxppd55q7$.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dded24f9-f083-4fcc-b0f9-a76554055fca@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:07:47 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> On 4 Wrz, 09:29, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Do we need that semantics (reinterpret bit pattern as another type)? It is
>> difficult to invent a case where an access value would be obtained from a
>> bit patterns. It is never needed, IMO.
>
> Hint: interfacing with other languages (notably C and C++) with
> libraries that have some callback or object map functionality.
You mean void *? That is Address (or some access type), not a bit pattern.
In short, you never needed Unchecked_Conversion that would behave
differently from Address_To_Access_Conversions does.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-04 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-02 20:38 Gem 39 - compiler specific? Maciej Sobczak
2009-09-02 23:20 ` Randy Brukardt
2009-09-03 7:26 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2009-09-03 15:26 ` Adam Beneschan
2009-09-03 16:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2009-09-03 17:27 ` Adam Beneschan
2009-09-03 20:26 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2009-09-03 22:06 ` Randy Brukardt
2009-09-04 7:29 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2009-09-04 12:07 ` Maciej Sobczak
2009-09-04 13:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2009-09-04 17:18 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2009-09-04 20:34 ` Maciej Sobczak
2009-09-04 22:41 ` sjw
2009-09-05 20:45 ` Maciej Sobczak
2009-09-06 6:54 ` sjw
2009-09-03 21:58 ` Randy Brukardt
2009-09-04 17:26 ` Robert A Duff
2009-09-03 21:53 ` Randy Brukardt
2009-09-03 0:12 ` Adam Beneschan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox