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,f71c159449d6e114
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Darel Cullen <Darel@djcull.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ada 83 - avoiding unchecked conversions.
Date: 1996/12/01
Message-ID: <7iUXbCAzSNoyEwlf@djcull.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 201633258
distribution: world
x-nntp-posting-host: djcull.demon.co.uk
references: <329C63BC.41C6@lmco.com> <dewar.849275146@merv>
organization: my bedroom
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.849275146@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu>
spoke thus :-
>Mary asks

[snip]
>
>"
>
>
>I always wonder when people say "I want to do X without using the obvious
>method for doing X". Can you explain why you don't want to use unchecked
>conversion here. Is there a real technical reason, or simply some kind
>of arbitrary rule in action?
>
>Of course you can do this assembly using multiplication (X * 2**16 + y).
>which is more appropriate depends on EXACTLY the abstract semantics of
>what you are doing (I mean which of unchecked conversion or multiplication)
>

In this case, I wouldnt be surprised if the employer had some kind
of 'coding standards' that generally tend to remove alot of
the more useful features of a language , such as unchecked
conversion/deallocation, or compiler pragmas, these documents tend to 
be sweeping, and have to be adhered too.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Darel J. Cullen                    Software Engineer
Email: Darel@djcull.demon.co.uk                      
Url: http://www.djcull.demon.co.uk/                 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-