From: rieachus@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Playing cards.
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2016-03-26T14:51:07-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <060566e9-c555-4eee-a40d-8ed338643d9e@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72436e28-13a7-4580-9503-0bd7111f4bab@googlegroups.com>
> Is there a reason why not to use (Natural range <>)?
It seems like a simple question, but digging through my mind, I dug out why.
I have plans for this type, and all my plans involve indexes from 1 to n. Someone else may have different plans, but that is their choice. In my case though, I expect to do lots of arithmetic to arrive at the correct index. Is it possible that some intermediate will have a zero or negative value? Sure. Should an Ada compiler try to do that gotcha range check? No. But if at some point there is a parameter or function return that should not be range checked, this works.
More, this tells the user of the package that any range checking will be bounds checking for a particular object.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-26 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-26 18:50 Playing cards rieachus
2016-03-26 20:46 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2016-03-26 21:51 ` rieachus [this message]
2016-03-28 21:13 ` Randy Brukardt
2016-03-29 0:08 ` Dennis Lee Bieber
2016-03-29 3:29 ` rieachus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox