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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 209866774 sender: news@syd.csa.com.au x-nntp-posting-host: dev50 references: <32DA822A.2FD8@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: CSC Australia, Sydney reply-to: donh@syd.csa.com.au newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington writes: :> Yes, these mechanisms are inherently unsafe but their purpose is to allow :> different views of the same data. There are different ways of acheiving :> that and some ways are safer than others. For example, UNCHECKED_CONVERSION :> is safer than overlaying because the data is copied thus protecting the :> original object. : :Why does UC require copying? It may not, as Robert Dewar suggests. However, IMO, the source object should be protected from corruption by any alternative view of its data. One way is by copying it. BTW, your program contains an illegal assignment to a function! :) : To_Int(Foo) := Bar; ^^ Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au