From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1999/12/16
Date: 1999-12-16T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3859a3ad_2@news1.prserv.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3859701a@rsl2.rslnet.net
In article <3859701a@rsl2.rslnet.net> , "Tom Hargraves"
<tharg@vtcinet.com> wrote:
> 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?
The object declaration
declare
function To_Unsigned is
new Unchecked_Conversion (Character, Unsigned_8);
C_As_Byte : constant Unsigned_8 := To_Unsigned ('A');
begin
should be identical to the declaration
declare
C : constant Character := 'A';
begin
If the former is more expensive than the latter, then your compiler is
broken.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-12-16 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-12-16 0:00 An alternative to Unchecked Conversion Tom_Hargraves
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Mark A Biggar
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-12-17 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-12-17 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Tom Hargraves
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney [this message]
1999-12-17 0:00 ` Lutz Donnerhacke
1999-12-17 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-12-16 0:00 ` DuckE
[not found] ` <mhrj5s4qckk7rt1j3pu0s3r438e281pu37@4ax.com>
1999-12-17 0:00 ` Simon Wright
[not found] ` <g9rr5s84eeov4vvp2v9v70jo9b5uporm0v@4ax.com>
1999-12-20 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-18 0:00 ` Rex Reges
1999-12-18 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-12-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-20 0:00 ` Charles H. Sampson
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Jeff Creem
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox