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,d17561d7e5eba62c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1999/12/16
Message-ID: <38596575_4@news1.prserv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 561703070
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 16 Dec 1999 22:19:33 GMT, 129.37.213.119
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Mime-version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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!