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,d17561d7e5eba62c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: An alternative to Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1999/12/16
Message-ID: <83brtl$c0m$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 561725854
References: <OF2D01D779.211C774B-ON88256849.006FEEEF@ray.ca>
 <38596575_4@news1.prserv.net>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 16 Dec 1999 23:17:09 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-16T23:17:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38596575_4@news1.prserv.net>,
	"Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:

>This is very naive.  Of course you should use Unchecked_Conversion.
>It's a clean way to bypass the type system, when you need to.

Good response, Matthew.  I think the issue is that Ada is, by default,
type safe.  The C family of languages is, by default, type unsafe. This
is also true of some other languages.  There are times when one requires
type unsafe.  Ada lets you relax the default with unchecked conversion.  

For the C family of languages, one can improve type safety, but type 
unsafe is always lying in the shallows waiting to swallow you like an
anaconda waiting for an unwary monkey.  

Richard Riehle