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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Characters with codes >= 128
Message-ID: <8281@think.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 14:39:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: think.8281
Posted: Thu Sep 10 14:39:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 09:32:18 EDT
References: <8709100440.AA04224@rand-unix.rand.org>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@godot.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8709100440.AA04224@rand-unix.rand.org> hermix!colbert@rand-unix.ARPA writes:
>As an additional comment, at the recent SIGAda Conference, Dr. Dewer indicated
>that Unchecked_Conversion could be legally implemented to always return 0 no
>matter what the "value" of the source object was.  I did not get a chance to
>full nail him down on what he ment by this comment, so may be he will respond
>to this message.

I presume that this refers to the fact that the language doesn't
specify what the result of Unchecked_Conversion is, rather it leaves
it implementation-defined.  In that case, an implementation may return
any value, and returning 0 in all cases would be valid.  It's not a
very useful behavior, but it isn't the purpose of a language spec to
define a useful language, merely a portable one.  Since you must check
the implementation spec to find out what the result is, you'll know
whether it is useful.

---
Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
seismo!think!barmar