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: 1998/11/18
Message-ID: <36531538.483857@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 413231974
References: <364C5EDE.4F402D13@elca-matrix.ch>
 <364c90eb.10939677@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <36501A46.82C348D3@elca-matrix.ch>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>I think a binding done with System.Address for pointers and strings, and
>Interfaces.C.Int for integers, would be far better.
  Why exactly is X'Address preferable to X'Unchecked_Access?
  Having spent a fair amount of time in the past debugging/correcting
supposedly portable code that incorrectly assumed an access type was a
'Address, I'm rather sensitive to this issue.