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: 1996/10/03
Message-ID: <dewar.844372923@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 187045395
references: <mheaney-ya023080002209961353500001@news.ni.net>
 <mheaney-ya023080002409960726040001@news.ni.net> <DyCF97.7zp@world.std.com>
 <1996Sep26.191257.1@eisner> <DyEr6p.38H@world.std.com>
 <1996Sep28.155354.1@eisner>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry said

"If the assignment of the output causes erroneousness,
then why isn't the name of the operation Checked Conversion ?

Larry Kilgallen"


There is some serious misconception in the above question, serious enough
so it is hard to figure out what Larry is getting at. In any case, the
fact that something might be erroneus has nothing to do with implying
the presence of checks -- in fact the exact opposite is true.