Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ECNCDC.BITNET!MSRS002 From: MSRS002@ECNCDC.BITNET ("THE DOCTOR.") Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Type tranfers Message-ID: Date: 29 May 89 18:25:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Modula2 List Organization: The Internet Lines: 22 Type transfers should be kept to a minimum as they are quite implementation specific. In the Third Edition, Wirth has an entire chapter on low level facillities ( ch 29 ). "He is strongly advised to resort to these facilities only in cases where their use is clearly unavoidable, because the regular language facilities do not cater to the problem." ( Wirth, p. 124 ) My own practice is to avoid them in general and isolate them in implementation specific modules. This way, if I decide to port the program from one computer or compiler to another, I only need to check this implementation specific module which is fairly small compared to the main program. The strange thing is, normally I am required to use some other language, and I'm allowed to "resort to Modula" only when writing something very machine specific which "cannot" be done in the other language. Therefore, I write m mostly implementation dependant modules. Sometimes I fudge a little on the "cannot" and use modula anyhow. The Doctor. Tom Ruby MSRS002@ECNCDC No disclaimers, I admit my guilt freely.