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,f127842852d2f03a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Stephen Leake Subject: Re: About conversions Date: 2000/11/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 695940742 References: <8vb0h9$1ou$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8vbfds$dih$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 974760988 5958 128.183.220.71 (20 Nov 2000 22:56:28 GMT) Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Nov 2000 22:56:28 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-11-20T22:56:28+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > > > 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