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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6e016ae58737f34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: win32ada design question/problem
Date: 1998/11/13
Message-ID: <364c90eb.10939677@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 411564916
References: <364C5EDE.4F402D13@elca-matrix.ch>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Of course I can use 'Unchecked_Access to circumvent this, but then I
>don't think that the binding is well designed if it requires
>'Unchecked_Access all over the place in code that uses it.
  It's not the binding that's of questionable design, it's Windows -
Win32Ada is just a thin binding to that, and Windows (based on C) uses
the equivalent of Unchecked_Access all over.  You either swallow hard
and do C-ish code with Ada syntax, or you hide it in a thicker
binding.