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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: claveman@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops)
Date: 1998/10/12
Message-ID: <1dgt6f1.1oau40z1p1ueeuN@n207167116181.inetworld.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400515753
References: <rfzpddz3s2.fsf@bnp-eng.remcomp.com>
 <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <dewar.903074236@merv>
 <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.903281994@merv>
 <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <l5HC1.6840$wN.1856764@news.giganews.com>
 <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk>
 <m3ogt3qgca.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <35f51e53.48044143@news.erols.com> <6sdiav$e0g$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <u90k5f1j1.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <6sfcft$70p$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <1dg8p3r.vfredh1aou58iN@n207167116191.inetworld.net>
 <6v2nr9$t8l$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <1dgane6.16owv2g7g8ov8N@u2n207167116151.inetworld.net>
 <slrn71blhi.rle.behrends@allegro.cse.msu.edu>
 <1dge7py.7401x8z7ne24N@u2n207167116162.inetworld.net>
 <slrn71goai.j94.behrends@allegro.cse.msu.edu>
 <1dghyt5.oik1lzhxzf2N@n207167116176.inetworld.net>
 <F0LEru.4tH@ecf.toronto.edu>
X-Trace: news2.randori.com 908258248 207.167.116.181 (Mon,
 12 Oct 1998 22:57:28 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:57:28 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Patrick Doyle <doylep@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:

> In article <1dghyt5.oik1lzhxzf2N@n207167116176.inetworld.net>,
> Charles H. Sampson <claveman@inetworld.net> wrote:
> >
> >In my entire career I have rarely written the following construct:
> >
> >                    <loop head>
> >                       <procedure call>
> >                    end loop
> >
> >Actually, I can't remember ever doing it, but I assume that I must have
> >at least a few times.
> 
> Eh?  How can you write a serious loop without calling a procedure
> from inside it?
> 
> Do I misunderstand what you wrote?

     I suspect that we're each misunderstanding the other, because your
response has surely puzzled me.  Before the confusion gets worse, maybe
you should define the term "serious loop".

     The above structure, that I don't remember writing, is not a loop 
that fails to contain a procedure call in its body.  It's a loop whose 
body consists entirely of a single procedure call.

                                Charlie

-- 
     To get my correct email address, replace the "claveman" by
"csampson" in my fake (anti-spam) address.