Re: A question re meaning/use of the "for ... use ..."

[Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> The ARG discussed this long ago, and concluded that such a facility isn't
> needed. That's because Unchecked_Conversion provides the needed support.
> Indeed, this is one of the few cases where the result of
> Unchecked_Conversion is defined by the language (using it in this way will
> work on all Ada compilers). There was some discussion about syntax guides
> that prohibit the use of Unchecked_Conversion, but there is a lot of
> discomfort about changing the language just because some people's style
> guides are broken...

I know the ARG has considered and discarded the idea, but that doesn't 
mean I have to agree with them.

This is such a common stumbling block that it deserves the extra space 
that having 2 distinct attributes ensures. The OP would never had posted 
his question had both attributes been in the ARM.

Over all, I don't feel very strongly about this issue. I haven't needed 
access to the underlying representation very often, even when it's 
non-standard.

I'm more interested in areas of inconsistency. Why is exit the only 
transfer of control with a when clause?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
Dr. Strangelove
33