Re: Semantics of Inline vs non-Inline

["Arthur Schwarz" <aschwarz1309@worldnet.att.net>]

"Wojtek Narczynski" <wojtek@power.com.pl> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.15.10.24.40.759156@power.com.pl...
> Hello,
>
> >> I think that using Unchecked_Conversion, instead of (ab)using 'Address
> >> rep clause, will fix the problem.
> >
> >    No abuse. 'Address is legal Ada. A novel or unexpected use does not
> >    mean that it 'abuses' the language. The current use allows the
> >    equivalent of a C/++ 'union'. Other C.L.A. communication shows this
> >    to be both a viable use and (to some) a good one.
>
> I cannot agree to that. It is a totally unchecked conversion of anything
> into anything (GNAT is kind enough to do some checks voluntarily). This is
> the way to defeat the Ada type system. It is mostly used to overcome the
> lack of 'out' parameters for functions. And we're just discussing a case
> where the use of 'Address led to a runtime crash.

  Well at this point we must respectfully disagree. I understand you
objection
  and don't take issue with it. Outside of LRM statements   prohibiting use
or
  mandating specific use, then the user is free to choose. I do not disagree
  that (in this case) this defeats the safety checks in Ada. I do disagree
with
  the notion that as a non-prohibited use it should be consigned to 'just
  deserved oblivion'. Sigh.

  And thank you again. You and Martin, the other respondent, have provided
  some alternatives which may relieve me of this problem.

art