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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,227757d168eaa8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!a6202946!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Organization: jrcarter commercial-at acm [period | full stop] org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A question re meaning/use of the "for ... use ..." References: <41b3291e$0$44072$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:36:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.189.50.220 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1102383387 63.189.50.220 (Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:36:27 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:36:27 PST Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6813 Date: 2004-12-07T01:36:27+00:00 List-Id: 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