From: Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>
Subject: Re: A copy question....
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:34:28 GMT
Date: 2001-10-16T02:34:28+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BCB9CAB.851B1224@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dale-FF763B.07031616102001@mec2.bigpond.net.au
Dale Stanbrough wrote:
>
> > Array (0 .. 199) := Address_To_Int_Pointer (Address).all (0 .. 199);
>
> I hadn't thought of that! Certainly better notationally - probably
> more efficient at the computer level as well.
The .all is not required. Note also that using
Address_To_Access_Conversions on an unconstrained array type is unlikely
to give the desired results. The compiler has no way to determine the
designated object's bounds. A constrained subtype is usually OK, but I
think using an address clause to locate an object of the desired type
and bounds is usually best.
--
Jeff Carter
"We call your door-opening request a silly thing."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-16 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-15 10:40 A copy question Zebylon
2001-10-15 11:21 ` Dale Stanbrough
2001-10-15 11:30 ` Dale Stanbrough
2001-10-15 11:59 ` Petter Fryklund
2001-10-15 21:04 ` Dale Stanbrough
2001-10-16 2:34 ` Jeffrey Carter [this message]
2001-10-16 11:15 ` Dale Stanbrough
2001-10-15 13:38 ` Ted Dennison
2001-10-15 13:30 ` Mark Doherty
2001-10-15 17:00 ` tmoran
2001-10-16 10:09 ` Mark Doherty
2001-10-17 0:18 ` tmoran
2001-10-17 1:14 ` David Botton
2001-10-16 23:00 ` David Botton
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox