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,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s21.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@acm.nospam.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
 grammar ?
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21> <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
In-Reply-To: <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vi_uj.42453$yE1.41991@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s21 1203532059 12.201.97.213 (Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:27:39 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:27:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:27:39 GMT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19914
Date: 2008-02-20T18:27:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik wrote:
 >
> Not quite, if you consider "type cast" is a unchecked bit pattern copy - 
> so if you define:
> 
> function X is new Unchecked_Conversion (...);
> 
> the X would indeed be a it "type cast".

No, "type cast" is not defined for Ada. What you have described is an unchecked 
type conversion.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"English bed-wetting types."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
15