Re: Containers - nontrivial element access

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 2 Pa , 01:52, "Alex R. Mosteo" <devn...@mailinator.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure the solution is clunky, unless you consider verbose=clunky.

The point is that in order to swap data, you need to pass the new
value to the modifying procedure. Since there are no on-the-fly
binders, this value has to be provided by additional variable, which
exists outside of the procedure, which access is passed. This looks
like a dodgy hack: I provide a procedure, which is not self-contained
anyway, so I also sneak around the value.

I have nothing against the procedure, even if it is longer (/= clunky)
than what I can do in C++. I have, however, a *serious* problem with
sneaking this value around.
This *is* clunky.

> There are additional differences, if I'm not mistaken (my C++ is a bit
> outdated). [] is, I think, unchecked (unlike .at()), so you could get a
> violation with that code that shouldn't be possible in Ada.

You are half right. The standard does not require [] to be checked. It
does not forbid it, either.

The point is not about [], actually, but about references. I might
have written my example like this:

swap(people.at(x).salary, people.at(y).salary);

and then you would not have been able to nit-pick on the possible
violation. :-)

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com