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: 103376,45a9122ddf5fcf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Rules for Representation of Subtypes
Date: 1996/09/30
Message-ID: <dewar.844114166@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186303279
references: <mheaney-ya023080002209961353500001@news.ni.net>
 <1996Sep26.191257.1@eisner> <DyEr6p.38H@world.std.com>
 <1996Sep28.155354.1@eisner> <DyGwtp.Bs1@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023180002909961030520001@news.ni.net>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew said

"I think his comment was in reaction a previous post, which stated that the
compiler would make all kinds of optimizations based on what it knew was an
illegal program as a result of a call to unchecked_conversion.  If the
compiler does something "special" to handle a "bad" program because of
unchecked_conversion, well, the conversion is not really "unchecked,"
right?"

Can you be clearer as to what you mean? For a start I assume that the
use of the word illegal should be erroneous? right?
unchecked simply means that the compiler is not required to generate
checking code for some error conditions, what else do you read into the
word?