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: 103376,885dab3998d28a4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ariane 5 failure
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <dewar.845506831@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189963390
references: <96101416363982@psavax.pwfl.com>
 <EACHUS.96Oct15152359@spectre.mitre.org> <dewar.845420361@merv>
 <542r7r$ema@linus.mitre.org>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Michael Brenner said

"(2) do not generate code for a given instantiation of unchecked_conversion,"

Most of the points are dubious, but I concentrate on this one, because it
is a common confusion. In general, almost any unchecked conversoin you canm
think of will require code on some architecture. The attempt to legislate
such code out of existence is pragmatically badly flawed, never mind being
completely impractical to specify formally (at the level of a language
definition there is no such thing as code!)