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: a07f3367d7,d23826ff0acb491b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.karotte.org!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news.weisnix.org!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Gem 39 - compiler specific?
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: <9e0bbbcd-260f-48ed-8043-d6280c633e85@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
  <h7mumh$707$1@munin.nbi.dk> <19268dbw82hf4.aii8as09aapk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4bff103b-1797-4e2b-9dcf-7466b667c59b@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <1s8kuin5t96vr$.1taw9mluqlplz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1bf4b63a-1e2d-41f1-97c6-8324d4b829ff@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <6o3frhrv0n0p$.8wj0gszs5h07$.dlg@40tude.net> <h7peo6$qvv$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1udpwiw4u1cj5$.ff4ssnbb90vn$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <dded24f9-f083-4fcc-b0f9-a76554055fca@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:06:12 +0200
Message-ID: <1pi1b5q7qu0q5.sgsbxppd55q7$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Sep 2009 15:06:12 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 97e7980e.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=;RlDeS3OMY<^8FBo0_81f>ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9]jH`jQQno`?DNcfSJ;bb[5FCTGGVUmh?4LK[5LiR>kg27EWTd[]Vd`6
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8152
Date: 2009-09-04T15:06:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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