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: "Tom Hargraves" Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion Date: 1999/12/16 Message-ID: <3859701a@rsl2.rslnet.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 561718623 References: <38596575_4@news1.prserv.net> X-Trace: 16 Dec 1999 15:04:58 -0800, van163-238.imag.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Date: 1999-12-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 wrote in message news:38596575_4@news1.prserv.net... > In article , > 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!