Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[SPick60809]

Hi

      I'm a student studying ADA for the first time and need help to produce an
algorithm to complete a basic program exercise I am stuck with.
      The program asks the user to input a large number (integer) and then
input two further numbers as factors of the first; the program then checks the
two numbers to see if they are indeed factors and outputs 'true' or 'false'
accordingly. 
      I cannot figure an algorithm to do this and am left with an idea that:-
large number/factor number=integer would work, checking that the factor divides
without remainder i.e. .0.8 etc. This does not work, telling me not to assign
value to 'integer'
     I hope there is a simple solution I have'nt seen and would be greatfull if
someone could point me that way :-) I would be very interested to know, also,
if there is an online source listing various algorithms of a similar
nature/maths level.

Regards and thanx

Sean

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <19991023203630.01992.00000385@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
  spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote:
> Hi
>
>       I'm a student studying ADA for the first time and need
help to produce an
> algorithm to complete a basic program exercise I am stuck
with.

But surely part of the excercise is to have YOU figure out
the algorithm. At least it seems reasonable to suppose that
is the excercise, rather than being an excercise in how to
use the web to get other people to think up the algorithm
for you :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <19991023203630.01992.00000385@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
  spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote:
> This does not work, telling me not to assign
> value to 'integer'

Now that sounds like you have some fundamental misconception
about Ada (that's the spelling by the way, it is a woman's name,
not an acronym, so unless you call your girlfriend, for example,
JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-)

Here is a place where we definitely can help, post your code
that is giving you the error message you do not understand,
make as small example as possible, and you will find that you
rapidly get a response pointing you in the direction of
fixing whatever misunderstanding you have of Ada (this is
after all an Ada group, your original question about the
algorithm appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Ada!)




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[SPick60809]

> (that's the spelling by the way, it is a woman's name,
>not an acronym, so unless you call your girlfriend, for example,
>JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-)

I asked for help with my problem in programming, not a lesson in spelling which
is, by the way,is taken as not done in usenet circles!
I also purposely kept the code query simple, I'm sorry you did not understand
this, shame.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <19991025071337.29192.00000857@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
  spick60809@aol.com (SPick60809) wrote:
> >JENNIFER, rather than Jennifer, you should spell it as Ada :-)
>
> I asked for help with my problem in programming, not a lesson in
> spelling which is, by the way,is taken as not done in usenet circles!

Whatever folks do in *other* usenet circles notwithstanding, we are very
senstive here about folks getting the capitalization of the language
correct here. Call it a group pathology if you want, but posting "ADA"
here is guaranteed to earn you a correction. You did it, you got your
corection, now lets move on...

> I also purposely kept the code query simple, I'm sorry you did not

Well, yes. But that's the problem. If you were to perhaps post the
*actual* line of code that the compiler doesn't like, along with the
*atual* error message, there's a good change we could tell you what's
actually going on. Without that information, we're just as lost as you.

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert A Duff]

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> Whatever folks do in *other* usenet circles notwithstanding, we are very
                                                               ^^
> senstive here about folks getting the capitalization of the language
> correct here.

Speak for yourself.  I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how
to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of
nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ...

Sheesh.

At least Robert's correction was humorous, rather than pedantic sounding
(so I'm not sure why the original poster chose to take offense (and then
ignored the *rest* of Robert's post)).

>... Call it a group pathology if you want, ...

OK.

It's a group pathology.  ;-)

- Bob

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Vladimir Olensky]

Robert A Duff wrote in message ...
>Speak for yourself.  I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how
>to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of
>nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ...


You are not alone in this club.
But what is nice that Ada itself does not complain  when encounter
for instance  ADA.Text_IO instead of Ada.Text_IO :-)

Could you imagine error message or warning something like this:
with ADA.Text_IO;
        >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work for you


Regards,
Vladimir Olensky

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <s1behln8gbb16@corp.supernews.com>,
  "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could you imagine error message or warning something like
this:
> with ADA.Text_IO;
>         >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work
> for you
>


It is easy to imagine :-) in -gnatg mode (the mode we use
internally at ACT to enforce all sorts of style rules), GNAT
will say:

     1. with ADA.Text_IO;
              |
        >>> (style) bad identifier casing, should be "Ada"

This actually is a consistency check, and reflects our rule that
all identifiers must have the same case as the defining
occurrence which in this case is of course spelled properly!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <s1behln8gbb16@corp.supernews.com>,
  "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Could you imagine error message or warning something like this:
> with ADA.Text_IO;
>         >>>Warning: Please, call me Ada if you want me to work for you

Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag. :-)

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7v4nt8$alf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag.

You mean of course -pedantic (with this option, you really
should spell it right :-)

In fact we decided not to use -pedantic for GNAT. Instead the
default is strictly standard (which is what -pedantic means),
and then the switch -gnatX enables language extensions
(currently the only one is with type).

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7v4nt8$alf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Gnat could hook this into the gcc "-pedantinc" flag.

You mean of course -pedantic (with this option, you really
should spell it right :-)

In fact we decided not to use -pedantic for GNAT. Instead the
default is strictly standard (which is what -pedantic means),
and then the switch -gnatX enables language extensions
(currently the only one is with type).

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <wccg0yzb1v3.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> Speak for yourself.  I'm sick and tired of reading discussions
> about how to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks
> look like a bunch of nitpicking pedants, who have nothing
> better to do than ...
>
> Sheesh.

I like people to know that the first programmer was a woman,
and that the language honors her contribution. I think that's
worthwhile general knowledge :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert A Duff]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> I like people to know that the first programmer was a woman,
> and that the language honors her contribution. I think that's
> worthwhile general knowledge :-)

Good point.

- Bob

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Aidan Skinner]

On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:51:28 GMT, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:

>Speak for yourself.  I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about how
>to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a bunch of
>nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ...

Given the number of posts to the team-ada mailing list thinking it's
about *either* the American Dental Associatian *or* the American
Disabilities Assoc. I think that the capitalisation is
important. Especially as one is very definately correct and one very
definately incorrect. 

There have even been people posting to cla confused about what exactly
we talk about in comp.lang.* ;)

This isn't just to make the group easier for the particpants to read,
but also to make it easier for people to find the information that
they're looking for.

- Aidan

-- 
"I say we just bury him and eat dessert"
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/
OpenPGP Key Fingerprint: 9858 33E6 C755 7D34 B5C5  316D 9274 1343 FBE6 99D9

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <slrn81bp1a.1bb.aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk>,
  aidan@skinner.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:51:28 GMT, Robert A Duff
<bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> >Speak for yourself.  I'm sick and tired of reading discussions about
> >how to capitalize Ada, and I think it makes Ada folks look like a
> >bunch of nitpicking pedants, who have nothing better to do than ...
>
> Given the number of posts to the team-ada mailing list thinking it's
> about *either* the American Dental Associatian *or* the American
> Disabilities Assoc. I think that the capitalisation is

Putting on my ameteur psychoanalist cap (a rather bizzare-looking
fedora, if you must know), I think there's much more to it than that.

In the early days of computing, language names tended to be acronyms.
Perhaps part of this had to do with the larger hand the US DoD used to
have in the development of languages, as they tend to be overly fond of
acronyms. Whatever the reason, sometime around the introduction of
Pascal the fashion changed. Now languages tend to be named after people
or things.

Anyway, I think a lot of readers here tend to be innundated in RL by
hecklers who like to misapprehend Ada as an old, obsolete military
language, with no significance in today's world. Often such folks tend
to insist on capitalizing it "ADA". So its a sort of knee-jerk reaction
to immediately "correct" anyone who uses "ADA" instead of Ada.

But is this reaction reasonable? Well, now lets turn our attention to
the "ADA" poster. *Why* did he capitalize it this way?

Could it be that he just naturally assumes all languages he doesn't know
well are capitalized that way? Well, if he's an undergrad student, he
was probably born in the 1977-1981 time frame. He wasn't around when
acronym languages were fashionable. The vast majority of languages he
has been exposed to would have been capitialized in the modern way. A
sensible default, knowing nothing else, would be that it is capitalized
"Ada". So that can't be it.

Could he have gotten that impression from looking at the front covers of
available literature? Often they will capitalize whole words on book
covers for stylistic reasons. Wirth's Oberon book does that. Well, I
don't claim to have a complete collection. But my manager is a bit of a
book-hound, so we have 13 different Ada (83 & 95) titiles here,
including both versions of the LRM. Not *one* of them uses all caps,
(although one did use all lower-case :-) ). That can't be it either.

The only thing we are left with is that he somehow made a mental
association with Ada that placed it in the same class as the acronym
languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he
is suffering under the misapprehension listed above.

Now, assuming that is the case, I'd argue that it would be quite
appropriate to try to correct this misimpression right off the bat. Not
only is that attitude somewhat insulting to Ada, but it will color that
person's thinking in a way that will inhibit truly learning the
language. Ada is in fact a quite modern language. Trying to think of it
in terms of old languages that don't have to worry about things like
stacks, namespaces, nested subprograms, and concurrecnty, is going to
cause the poor poster no end of troubles.

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Nick Roberts]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> ...
> languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That means he
> ...

That should be ForTran, actually.






:-)

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>,
  Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
> Ted Dennison wrote:
> > ...
> > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That
means he
> > ...
>
> That should be ForTran, actually.

Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized
"Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before).

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[William B. Clodius]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> <snip>
> Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized
> "Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before).
> <snip>

In 1977/1978, when FORTRAN 77 was near the end of its standardization
process, ANSI  developed a standard for the casing of standardized
names. Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial
capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps.
This standard was later adopted by other standardization bodies, i.e.,
ISO. Rather than force an additional delay in changing the text of the
FORTRAN 77 standard, this rule was waived for that standard, but all
subsequent Fortran standardization adapted to that rule, usually
refering to previous standards using an initial 'F' followed by small
caps for 'ortran'.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Simon Wright]

"William B. Clodius" <wclodius@lanl.gov> writes:

> In 1977/1978, when FORTRAN 77 was near the end of its standardization
> process, ANSI  developed a standard for the casing of standardized
> names. Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial
> capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps.
> This standard was later adopted by other standardization bodies, i.e.,
> ISO.

So one would expect Ansi and Iso, then (I can't remember anyone
spelling them out, they're always pronounced as words ..)

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[William B. Clodius]

Simon Wright wrote:
> <snip>
> So one would expect Ansi and Iso, then (I can't remember anyone
> spelling them out, they're always pronounced as words ..)

Are standard developing organiztions standards themselves?

In any case the rule may not apply to ISO since the organization does
not consider its name to be an acronym. It is officially Swiss and I
know of no obvious French or German set of names that describes ISO and
has the acronym ISO.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Wes Groleau]

> ..... Under this standard pronouncable acronyms have an initial
> capital, but the rest lower case, and unpronounceable ones all caps.

But what puzzles me is why some (not all) make a point of writing
"Fortran," yet continue to also write "COBOL"  One such person has even
lectured us on the "pronounceable" rule.  :-)

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <381F1062.A564DAFD@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>,
  Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote:
> But what puzzles me is why some (not all) make a point of
> writing "Fortran," yet continue to also write "COBOL"  One
> such person has even lectured us on the "pronounceable" rule.

Because, speaking as one who was once VERY involved in the
COBOL world (I wrote a large chunk of what is now the Computer
Associates Realia COBOL compiler for the PC), and still keep
contact with it, this is standard usage. All the books on my
shelf use the spelling COBOL, as do typical software products.
I never see anyone in that area using the Cobol spelling.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Wes Groleau]

> COBOL  .... is standard usage. 
> I never see anyone in that area using the Cobol spelling.

Standard usage is an acceptable reason.  I just hope that
I don't ever again catch someone writing "COBOL" after lecturing
us on the "pronounceable" rule.  :-)

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[David Starner]

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:03:16 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>,
>  Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>> Ted Dennison wrote:
>> > ...
>> > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL). That
>means he
>> > ...
>>
>> That should be ForTran, actually.
>
>Yeah. And in all fairness, I believe they prefer it capitalized
>"Fortran" theese days (probably for the same reasons I outlined before).

Technically, FORTRAN 77 and previous are all spelled FORTRAN. Fortran 90
and later are Fortran.

--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <3818BDC9.D8CF1D3B@callnetuk.com>,
  Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
> Ted Dennison wrote:
> > ...
> > languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL).
That means he
> > ...
>
> That should be ForTran, actually.
>
> :-)


I know there is a smiley there, which may clue in the
initiated, but the name of the language is of course
Fortran (see the appropriate standardizing documents)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Gautier]

A quick reflexion on Ada capitalization:
at least with C they avoided (a part of) the problem...

  About psychanalysis and the <<Sixties forever>> trend
in computing, or, how to put modern clothes (visual,OO)
to old debris, I just discovered that mental regression
in that area doesn't need the `++' disguisement. The true
regression proudly show its '--' (I'm a totally
unfair...):

  http://www.research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/c--.html

-- 
Gautier

_____\\________________\_______\
http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7va4ns$898$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL).
> That means he
> is suffering under the misapprehension listed above.

Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is
Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about
stones and glass houses etc.) :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <7vhirl$92q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
	Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is
>Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about
>stones and glass houses etc.) :-)

It makes me happy to program in aDa because it is not case sensitive. 
Therefore, I say, FoRtRaN, for fortran, or FORtran, or forTRAN. Case
sensitive reserved words was case sensitive identifiers sometimes
provide lots of late night entertainment when someone does something
such as,
 
                int INT

but usually more subtle, and usually not immediately visible. 

In the Ada community, we do pay special homage to the late Countess
of Lovelace by the convention of not turning her into some kind of
ugly acronym.  It is not a matter of snobbery, but an attitude of
respect for her contribution.  If she were alive, she might not 
approve of us shouting her name, ADA!, and might even prefer a more
diminutive and modest approach of ee cummings, as ada.   

Consider how this corresponds with contemporary usage of names. None
of the cognoscenti participating in this forum would even fall into 
the error of calling Robert Dewar, "Bob."   :-) 

Then again, we must consider the difference between form and 
substance.  Ada, ada, ADA, aDa, aDA, adA, ADa, AdA, all spell
quality in software.  The underlying language is the really
important issue.  If someone prefers, as I do, FORTRAN to Fortran,
I see little harm in it.  If someone chooses Fortran over Ada, 
we begin to suspect a serious intellectual defect.   If someone
chooses c++ over ada, regardless of where the capital letters
are placed, there is a clear indication of chronic mental aberration. 
Choosing the right tool is more important than choosing the 
preferred spelling. 

Richard Riehle    

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[David Starner]

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:14:14 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7va4ns$898$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>> languages he knows about (most likely, FORTRAN and COBOL).
>> That means he
>> is suffering under the misapprehension listed above.
>
>Gosh Ted, I hope you know that the name of the language is
>Fortran, and not FORTRAN (you know the old saying about
>stones and glass houses etc.) :-)

The name of the language is both FORTRAN & Fortran. FORTRAN is applied
to the versions <= 77. Fortran is applied to the versions >= 90.

--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <7vhrs6$79q1@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
  dvdeug@x8b4e53cd. (David Starner) wrote:
> The name of the language is both FORTRAN & Fortran. FORTRAN is
applied
> to the versions <= 77. Fortran is applied to the versions >=
90.

Well I was of course referring to the most recent version. Of
course Fortran is really odd, both the 77 and 90 standards
from ANSI are valid at the same time, a very peculiar situation
reflecting an inability to get a real consensus that F90
represented *the* direction in which Fortran development should
go. Does someone know if the ISO standard suffers the same
schizophrenia? Normally there can be only one ISO standard for
a language (Ada 83 is no longer an ISO standardized language).

The Fortran community that I know these days typically spells
the language in the modern style Fortran, rather than in the
old style FORTRAN.

COBOL though is almost always thus spelled in the COBOL
community.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: Simple algorithmic question I hope :-)

[William B. Clodius]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> Well I was of course referring to the most recent version. Of
> course Fortran is really odd, both the 77 and 90 standards
> from ANSI are valid at the same time, a very peculiar situation
> reflecting an inability to get a real consensus that F90
> represented *the* direction in which Fortran development should
> go. Does someone know if the ISO standard suffers the same
> schizophrenia? Normally there can be only one ISO standard for
> a language (Ada 83 is no longer an ISO standardized language).
> <snip>

No, ISO recognized only one standard. The US appears to have been the
only country that retained both standards as applicable. I believe this
dual standard ended in 1996 or 1997, shortly before Fortran 95 became a
standard. Politically this was justified as driven by the NIST
conformance tests for Fortran 77 which was odd because

	1. Fortran 90 was to all intents and purposes a superset of Fortran 77
+ MIL-STD 1753. About the only problems the test code could have is if
the test code were not valid, or they used a name for a procedure that
was identical to one of the new intrinsics added in Fortran 90, a
conflict that is easy to fix using the EXTERNAL statement and still
leave the test code valid Fortran 77.

	2. Most compiler implementors that I have talked to, more than half a
dozen, talked about the conformance tests as if they were a joke.

	3. By 1995 NIST was talking about getting out of programming language
conformance testing activity.

In reality it was driven by the large number of Fortran 77 vendors, more
than half the total, that either could not afford to upgrade their
compilers to standard conformance or wanted to focus on other areas
(e.g. Watcom and C/C++) but still wanted to tout their compiler as
standard conforming.