Re: Generic Pointer Type

[cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!progers@ucbvax.Berke ley.EDU (Pat Rogers)]

In article <EMERY.93Sep8133649@goldfinger.mitre.org> emery@goldfinger.mitre.org
 (David Emery) writes:
>
[much good stuff]

>Anytime you use Unchecked_Conversion, you incur a portability risk.
>This doesn't mean "don't do it", but it means that "understand what
>you're doing."
>
>				dave

Which is why I wrote:

> Granted that unchecked programming is not something to do everywhere. But 
> this idea that Unchecked_Conversion and Unchecked_Deallocation are somehow
> responsible for the invocation of demons is rather unrealistic.  They
> have their uses.  Hide them and get on with it.

The idea that use of unchecked programming ( conversion and deallocation )
is "against the spirit of Ada" or even illegal is how I interpreted the
original post, as such has been said too many times in the past (not by you,
Dave).  The original poster said "go outside the standard", and "bad thing"
so I answered accordingly.  I was not suggesting that unchecked_conversion
is always well-defined or always a "good thing", just that they will not
cause plagues, as is so often thought by those new to the language.

pat rogers