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: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence Date: 1997/03/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 229333552 References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> <1997Mar28.170935.19124@nosc.mil> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1997Mar28.170935.19124@nosc.mil>, sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) wrote: > Unchecked_conversion should be used when you absolutely have to and >avoided in all other circumstances. It is definitely not portable. What is non-portable about using Unchecked_Conversion to convert an integer to a record? The only time you have a portability problem with UC is when the target type is unconstrained. Since the target type is constrained, and can be specified using a portable representation clause, using UC seems like the most sensible thing to do. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271