Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion

["Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>]

In article <OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca> , 
Tom_Hargraves@Raytheon.com  wrote:

> There have been some good responses to the related topic. I agree with the
> sentiment that Unchecked_Conversion should be rarely if ever used.

This is very naive.  Of course you should use Unchecked_Conversion.
It's a clean way to bypass the type system, when you need to.

Of course, if you don't need to bypass the type system, then there's no
need to use UC.  So the sentiment should be

  Don't bypass the type system unless you need to.

However, when doing low-level, systems programming, you often need to
perform type conversions, and UC is just what you need.  So of course
you should use it!