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: 103376,86ec22e070e319c0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) Subject: Re: How do I get this to work?? Date: 1999/01/06 Message-ID: <3693d083.5956689@news.pacbell.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 429540682 References: <76s0dp$1v4$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <76tbvv$ba5$1@nntp3.uunet.ca> <770ifd$qui$1@goblin.uunet.ca> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net 915657023 206.170.2.170 (Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:10:23 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:10:23 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >>'unchecked_access will eliminate the error message. >Thanks, it does indeed eliminate the error, but it leaves me with a bad >taste. Somewhat like resorting to an unchecked_conversion. I used to feel that way too, but now realize that in fact it is merely an explicit indication that I'm trusting the called C function to not hang onto the pointer after the thing it pointed to is gone. ie, the nervousness is due to calling such C functions, not to using 'unchecked_conversion.