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,XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78b2880bc7e78e39 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-20 02:22:11 PST From: "Martin Dowie" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <98qumf$5sf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98r4g1$7r1$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ab1d090$1@pull.gecm.com> <98t8la$rc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: RISC Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:17:45 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Message-ID: <3ab72c8f$1@pull.gecm.com> X-Trace: 20 Mar 2001 10:10:23 GMT, sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5887 Date: 2001-03-20T10:17:45+00:00 List-Id: I have to confess to using checked conversion - I hadn't concidered overlays. Thinking about it I'm not sure I could as we try and avoid having _any_ representation clauses on any of the type that we use within the application. If I were to use an overlay, is it possible to use a 'Valid check on the resulting object and verify it that way? Am I right in thinking that overlays are now 'guarenteed' to work as we lay-people expect? I know in '83 they were 'a bad thing' although they worked in every case I ever saw them used. Marin David Condic wrote in message news:98t8la$rc$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > No, you are not alone. There have been a number of times that I and others > have raised problems in this forum relating to representation clauses. I > have had particular troubles with representation clauses on tagged records > and private records. I know others have had similar experiences. Inevitably, > there are work-arounds that will let you get the job done, but they are > typically inefficient or inelegant or, more commonly, both. > > Resorting to some version of byte arrays & unchecked conversions or overlays [snip]