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: Valid Attribute and Unchecked Conversion
Date: 1996/10/08
Message-ID: <dewar.844782774@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 188026300
references: <3252ED6B.1B74@lmco.com> <53151i$ddd@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
 <32550731.167EB0E7@swl.msd.ray.com> <53b658$c71@wdl1.wdl.lmco.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mark says

"Why was the Unchecked_Conversion of an invalid scalar made erroneous in LM 95
instead of a bounded error like the coresponding uninitialized variable case?"

For discrete types, I think this is an excellent question and cannot think of
any reasonable response.

For floating-point, you might have trouble with signalling NaN's, though
this could certainly be handled too.