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,cef1e23795181e0c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable?
Date: 1999/02/24
Message-ID: <7avpi0$jke$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 447720990
References: <36d05e39.0@news.pacifier.com>
 <36d2638e.6427631@nntp.concentric.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 24 02:52:52 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-02-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <36d2638e.6427631@nntp.concentric.net>,
  cjrgreen@concentric.net (Christopher Green) wrote:
> It is primarily useful in situations in which alternative
> implementations end up causing a bitwise copy.  If
> the object to be converted is large, or the conversion
> must be done many times, this can be a win.

This seems bogus to me. If you replace this by unchecked
conversion of *pointers* (i.e. access values), NOT the
items themselves, then there is no bit copying, and no
inefficiency at all in the access.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own