Re: Containers - nontrivial element access

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

On 3 Pa , 00:20, Matthew Heaney <mhea...@on2.com> wrote:

> > BTW - above, PX plays the role of that additional variable that is
> > sneaked around to the second procedure. Here it just pretends to not
> > exist by taking the form of a parameter in the outer procedure. I
> > don't think there is a reasonable way to avoid it.
>
> The number of "additional variables" is exactly the same in both the C+
> + and Ada examples.  The only difference is how the variables are
> named.

No. The difference is in whether the subprogram's protocol is fully
described by its signature.

Your nested procedures have the signature that gives provisions for
one parameter only. The other one is sneaked in bypassing the
signature (so that the protocol is wider than the signature and this
is not explicit). This hinders analysis.

I can even think about coding standards that explicitly forbid
subprograms that use anything other than what is in their signature
(except for the main subprogram, which might need to access some
library-level objects).

Your solution requires some dose of liberal thinking, which I'm not
easily willing to accept in the language that boasts high-integrity
mindset. ;-)

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