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: 103376,8bf89a9bbd99a65e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: array conversion - how to do?
Date: 1997/07/04
Message-ID: <dewar.868073377@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254704031
References: <5opej8$rv5$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
 <33B3DE95.41EF@does.not.exist.com> <dewar.867457041@merv>
 <5p3qk2$8mk$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> <dewar.867957369@merv>
 <5pjkpi$mvk$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Geert said

<<The code for Array_Conversion that I showed uses Unchecked_Conversion
from one constrained array to another. All checks can be eliminated,
so Unchecked_Conversion can just provide a different view of the
array which is the goal I want to achieve. I'll quote some references
to support my claim that the code can be optimized to null.
>>

Yes, indeed, if you use unchecked conversion, the optimization is
legitimate and expected.