Re: About conversions

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> <snip explanation of type conversion on OUT parameter>
> 
> It's really there to provide an easy explanation for what
> happens in the case of derived types. I think it's actually
> misguided, because although it makes the explanation of derived
> types easier, it introduces a bogus misleading feature into the
> language that is of very little practical use and which causes a
> lot of confusion, even among people who know Ada well!

I think that's a bit strong. I've had occasion to use type conversion
on out parameters, without using derived types (no examples readily at
hand, or at least they are hard to find). I should think needing to
convert an out parameter would happen about as often as needing to
convert an in parameter, or a function result. The syntax may seem a
little backwards, but if you think of it as "convert this object as
needed to match the subprogram specification" it makes more sense.

On the other hand, I'm one of "the people who know Ada well", so maybe
I've just gotten my brain bent properly :).

-- 
-- Stephe