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: 103376,229ea0001655d6a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!212.101.4.254.MISMATCH!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic Package
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <19qllkvm6ut42$.1iqo74vjgmsrv$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1177539306.952515.222940@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	 <1177601484.444701.171560@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	 <pcp92sp50q98$.lad523qlftgm.dlg@40tude.net> <m2zm4udcqt.fsf@mac.com>
	 <degsdvcu9wwi$.1j7dffe23bgq5$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <9eejm6rqip.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <19qllkvm6ut42$.1iqo74vjgmsrv$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-Id: <1177801611.10171.32.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:06:52 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2007 01:06:52 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 30c78b06.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC==<[aFOdkN::RLigj];iP=8ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1Fl8W>\BH3Y2cCBG=b`1oh8A:ho7QcPOV3K8THeB[kG06o5gn9ljR]Z6
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15392
Date: 2007-04-29T01:06:52+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 19:35 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:


> Yes, because that set is a representation [model] of some other [domain
> space] set which could be fundamentally unordered and/or uncountable.

Should we therefore tie the notion of iterating something to
procedures that a computer can't perform? ;-)

>  As an
> example consider merits of the loop:
> 
>    for X in 0.0..1.0 loop
> 
> Fortunately the above is illegal in Ada. Not because it were impossible:
> 
> declare
>    X : Float := 0.0;
> begin
>    while X <= 1.0 loop
>       ...
>       X := Float'Succ (X);
>    end loop;
> 
> but because it is a mess.
> 
> After interating reals we could proceed to complex numbers...

And on to more not fully representable things such as collections
of tuples made to correspond to the elements of a suitably defined
Cauchy sequence.
If only computers could produce the elements of more than zero
uncountable sets ...

Like Simon, I'm not sure I'm familiar with your iteration;
my containers would be providing iteration if they can do one of

- take a subprogram (e.g.) and call it for each of a collection
  of elements

- provide access to an element and then the next if any where the
  meaning of "next" is specified in the collection's contract 

The amount of determinism need not be 100%. E.g., the post-condition
if Iterate that each element is visited once, in no particular order,
seems reasonable to me.

http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~sather/Publications/toplas.html

Is there iteration in the following SETL expression?

  Result := { x : x in {1, 3, 24, 17, 11} | P(x) };