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: 1999/02/26 Message-ID: <7b5tr0$rso$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 448661374 References: <36d05e39.0@news.pacifier.com> <36d2638e.6427631@nntp.concentric.net> <7avpi0$jke$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36d3ba85.713118@nntp.concentric.net> <7b2l6s$vu3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36d50d18.695962@nntp.concentric.net> <7b3glh$ml6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b49m5$eet$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36d65c7c.15971534@nntp.concentric.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.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: Fri Feb 26 10:42:41 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <36d65c7c.15971534@nntp.concentric.net>, cjrgreen@concentric.net (Christopher Green) wrote: > Maybe the Unchecked_Conversion of access types has > wider approval from those who develop language standards. If you are using a language, it is incumbent on you to KNOW the language! The language is defined by the standard, not by the behavior of the compiler you are using. > But I cannot afford to spend more time than I have to in > troubleshooting code that fails to port to a new > compiler. If you want to minimize time spent porting stuff, then know the language and AVOID erroneous constructs. > In the products I deal with regularly, address > representation clauses are the cause of no more > portability problems than are uses of > Unchecked_Conversion. Yes, but those are, as you say "the products you deal with regularly". If you use erroneous constructs then new versions or new compilers may cause problems that you do not anticipate. If you use implementation dependent features, you need to KNOW you are doing it, and know EXACTLY what you are depending on, and CHECK that the vendor of your current compiler really does support what you expect, and USE these criteria for selecting new compilers. It is amazing to me how many people write implementation dependent and erroneous code without even knowing they are doing so. They then get indignant when their code does not port to a new compiler, new machine, or even new version of the same compiler they are using. "But I thought Ada was portable! Why should I have to change my code. My code is correct -- how do I know, because it works! [i.e. appears to work]." The attitude that you do not have time to learn the language, and that that stuff is all junk that has to do with "those who develop language standards", and has nothing to do with you, is what leads some people to have a lot of trouble porting their code, while other people have far less trouble! There is no question that conversion of access types is, for many technical reasons, safer and more portable than the use of address overlays. The reasons have been discussed here many times. Yes, you can dismiss these discussions as irrelevant nonsense which you don't have time to follow, but this may well be a matter of saving a bit of time now, to be paid back with high interest later on! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own