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: 103376,2203a21a136b39cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence
Date: 1997/03/29
Message-ID: <dewar.859697187@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229388491
References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> <dewar.859383980@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002903971519450001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iMatthew Heaney says

<<This is bad advice Robert.  The use of Unchecked_Conversion is clearly what
is required.>>

In response to my encouragement to use address clauses for overlay where
that is convenient.

Matthew, interesting opinion ... but not so interesting if you don't give
some backup to your claim. 

First, I trust you realize that the negative view of overlap expressed
in the Ada 83 RM is COMPLETELY GONE in Ada 95. In the RM there is absolutely
no preference for the use of unchecked conversion over the use of address
overlays. You should use whichever of the two is more convenient.

Second, as you can see from the subject, the issue is mimicking the Fortran
equivalence statement. Address overlays are a very close semantic match
for equivalence, so it makes sense to answer the question this way.

I am curious to wait for the justification you have for the above opinion!