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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1676be4fafed1dbb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Arthur Schwarz" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <35f054ea.0410140733.5f250e6f@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Semantics of Inline vs non-Inline X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:32:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.61.107 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1097857964 12.72.61.107 (Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:32:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:32:44 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5274 Date: 2004-10-15T16:32:44+00:00 List-Id: "Wojtek Narczynski" 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