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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,673d883a7001e192
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:30:03 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus.rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de>
Organization: #
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pure, Storage_Size and Unchecked_Conversion
References: <1183854255.792142.110150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <f6unk4$gb8$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
In-Reply-To: <f6unk4$gb8$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <469342b3$0$5700$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jul 2007 10:26:27 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1f1034f2.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=63b2cn_QYld>jlK2>IgHGdA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRagUcjd<3m<;bRL[?1iOKGNhPCY\c7>ejVhE4[Rm]bN;^hHh=U?W<H:ef
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16450
Date: 2007-07-10T10:26:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Y.Tomino" <demoonlit@panathenaia.halfmoon.jp> wrote in message

>>    function F2 is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion (Integer, T); -- NG
>>
>> Why does compiler make an error at F2?
> 
> You've gotten a whole bunch of answers, but I think the correct one has not
> be provided:
> it is a compiler bug and there should not be an error at F2.
> 
> I'd suggest that you (and others as well) should ask the people at AdaCore
> about what appear to be compiler bugs (especially in things changed by the
> Amendment, which are highly likely to be buggy as they are new) rather than
> confusing many with examples that seem to show non-existent limitations of
> Ada (as opposed to a particular compiler).

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure that the suspicion
of a bug has now turned into much more certainty and somewhat
better understanding of the language. A paradigmatic demonstration
of the value of support if that is within reach for an Ada 2005 compiler.