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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2203a21a136b39cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: JP Thornley Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence Date: 1997/04/02 Message-ID: <881443566wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 230203627 References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> X-Mail2News-User: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: relay-11.mail.demon.net!relay-10.mail.demon.net!diphi.demon.co.uk Organization: None Reply-To: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > ............................... In the RM there is absolutely > no preference for the use of unchecked conversion over the use of address > overlays. You should use whichever of the two is more convenient. Whichever is used it must be important to show that writing a valid value in one type cannot result in a read of an invalid value of the other - and in general this will be easier if Unchecked_Conversion (which is strictly one-way) is used rather than overlays. Am I right in feeling that 13.9.1(14) applies to both (even though it is only a note)? Phil Thornley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk | | phil.thornley@acm.org | ------------------------------------------------------------------------