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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!gatech!linus!dee
From: dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: FOR Iteration Scheme
Message-ID: <36529@linus.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 88 20:43:17 GMT
References: <5320@june.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
In-reply-to: pattis@june.cs.washington.edu's message of 18 Jul 88 20:15:33 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From: pattis@june.cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis)
>  In the process of writing a CS-1 book that uses Ada as its langauge of
>discourse, I am trying to describe formally the semantics of the FOR iteration
>scheme using other parts of Ada (whose semantics I explain operationally). Is
>the following the most accurate statement I can make?  CAUTION: I am in the
>process of learning Ada (trying to compose such explanations helps me), so
>this may be a naive question.

This might also be a naive question:  Why are you writing a book about
a language you do not know?  

Didn't the Boehm-Jacobini proof demonstrate the semantics of FOR loops
using iteration and selection?

				dave emery
				emery@mitre-bedford.arpa