From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation
Date: 2000/04/06
Date: 2000-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8cica0$1iu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 38EBAAD6.3EA21F14@earthlink.net
In article <38EBAAD6.3EA21F14@earthlink.net>,
"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@earthlink.net> wrote:
> type Foo is access Bar;
> function UC is new Unchecked_Conversion(Foo, Integer);
>
> Now try to port the code to an Ada implementation where
> Integer is 16
> bits. You think you
> can just redefine UC, but it is not that easy.
This is complete nonsense as far as I am concerned. The
difficulty of conversion here is completely unaffected by
whether the unchecked conversion is in the body or in the
spec. In either case we have conversions that must be dealt
with, and the set of problems is identical in the two cases.
The *only* difference is in whether stuff has to be recompiled
or not, and even this does not apply if there is a pragma
Inline around. Otherwise it makes no semantic difference
AT ALL whether the UC is in the spec or body.
Calling it unchecked_perversion does not make an argument :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-04-06 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-03-05 0:00 Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation Andy Askey
2000-03-06 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
2000-03-06 0:00 ` tmoran
2000-03-06 0:00 ` John English
2000-03-06 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
[not found] ` <38C566CE.6283C0AD@rational.com>
2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-03-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
2000-04-05 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
2000-04-06 0:00 ` P. S. Norby
2000-04-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2000-04-09 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
2000-04-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-04-12 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox