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: 103376,39479d7149884fb6,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Wes Groleau Subject: Philosophical Question (End_Of_File) Date: 2000/02/11 Message-ID: <38A4799B.6D2E7ABE@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 584701453 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en,es,fr,pt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: news@icg.raytheon.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 950303132 151.168.144.162 (Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:05:32 CST) Organization: Raytheon Company MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:05:32 CST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: We're taught to embed file input statements inside a control structure with an End_Of_File test, right? The idea is that instead of reading and then handling the exception, we avoid the exception, right? So why do some vendors implement End_Of_File something like this? function End_Of_File (....) is begin Read_Without_Advancing; return False; exception when End_Of_File => return True; end End_Of_File; I know of at least three that do this. It can't be easier--somewhere down in the lower level, the end of file had to be detected and the exception raised. Am I missing something? -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau