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,f71c159449d6e114
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ada 83 - avoiding unchecked conversions.
Date: 1996/12/11
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961211100759.12682D-100000@nunic.nu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203544727
references: <329C63BC.41C6@lmco.com> <dewar.849275146@merv>
 <7iUXbCAzSNoyEwlf@djcull.demon.co.uk>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: National University, San Diego
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>




On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Darel Cullen wrote:

  In reply to a well-stated comment on the captioned topic,

> In this case, I wouldnt be surprised if the employer had some kind
> of 'coding standards' that generally tend to remove alot of
> the more useful features of a language , such as unchecked
> conversion/deallocation, or compiler pragmas, these documents tend to 
> be sweeping, and have to be adhered too.

  Does anyone else find it odd that the people who make up rules about
  programming are often people who no longer write programs.  In some
  cases, they are people who have never written code in the language
  for which they are defining such rules.

  Richard Riehle