From: reason67@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Questions about Unchecked_Conversion
Date: 1999/12/17
Date: 1999-12-17T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83c5pd$rkn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 38593212_2@news1.prserv.net
In article <38593212_2@news1.prserv.net>,
"Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> In article <1e2w3op.j44mmjevrxz4N%claveman@inetworld.net> ,
> claveman@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>
> > Notice also that this is highly hardware dependent. Use with
care.
> > However, don't avoid it because of this dependency when you really
need
> > it.
>
> No, UC is not "highly hardware dependent." The semantics of UC are
> well-defined, and the conditions under which these semantics are
> guaranteed are listed in RM95 13.9 (5-11).
I think he meant the nature of the hardware dependant features make
the use of Unchecked_Conversion to lower your portability. For instance,
an Integer to byte array on a Big Endian Machine will produce different
results than on a Little Endian Machine.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-12-17 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-12-15 0:00 Questions about Unchecked_Conversion MaryAnn Atkinson
1999-12-15 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-12-15 0:00 ` reason67
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Charles H. Sampson
1999-12-16 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-12-17 0:00 ` reason67 [this message]
1999-12-18 0:00 ` Charles H. Sampson
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox