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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,223af7b95794ff28
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com
Subject: Re: Get_Line vs Adasockets
Date: 2000/08/17
Message-ID: <NoWm5.114130$i5.1653554@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 659435002
References: <39979E8D.558CF45A@baesystems.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 966537901 24.20.190.201 (Thu,
 17 Aug 2000 11:45:01 PDT)
Organization: @Home Network
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:45:01 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-08-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Perhaps one of the language lawyers could comment on the use of
>unchecked_conversion to (I assume) convert from an address to an access type?
  It's not required to do what you want, but often does.

>I thought that was the purpose of the standard package
>System.Address_To_Access_Conversions?
  Yes.  That is supposed to do what you want.