Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion

["Tom Hargraves" <tharg@vtcinet.com>]

Oops. Excuse my English. I meant to express the opinion that
Unchecked_Conversion _need_ rarely if ever be used, in 'normal' programming
practice. So I think we are in agreement here. Why disable one of the best
features of Ada if you don't need to :-)

I welcome comments re. the technical merits of address mapping vs.
unchecked_conversion. For me address mapping worked fine, whereas
unchecked_conversion did a lot of additional data copying. So that's why I
didn't use it. What did I loose?

Yours curiously,
Tom H.

Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote in message
news:38596575_4@news1.prserv.net...
> 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!