Re: Don't we already have a 'Valid? (was Re: Unchecked_Conversion...)

[haven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!nobody@uunet.uu.net (Mike Berman)]

Apologies for following up my own posting, but I've already received
some e-mail on the topic and thought I'd clear up some ambiguities.

The prior discussion on unchecked_conversion has quite adequately
explained why the code I excerpted operates the way it does. The result
of the unchecked_conversion makes the program erroneous if it is not a
valid member of the target type.

The real question is why does the "type_mark" form of the "in" operator
exist? Most people use "in" solely for checking ranges within a scalar
type, but it is defined to operate on _any_ type. Since it can't be used
to check the results of unchecked_conversions, then why is it defined
for nonscalar types?

And, as the subject line suggests, why not use the already-defined
syntax for the "in" operator _instead_ of adding the 'Valid attribute?

-- 
Mike Berman
University of Maryland, Baltimore County     Fastrak Training, Inc.
berman@umbc.edu                              (301)924-0050
       The views represented in the above post are my own.