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
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch>
Subject: Re: Philosophical Question (End_Of_File)
Date: 2000/02/12
Message-ID: <38A4A341.7F7ACDCF@maths.unine.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 584743796
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38A4799B.6D2E7ABE@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <38A494C3.659F9193@maths.unine.ch>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 12 Feb 2000 00:01:53 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> BTW GNAT that doesn't do so (in Direct_IO, 3.11) is *much* faster
> with simple loop within a begin..exception..end block than with
> "while not End_Of_File loop" (maybe because both End_Of_File and Read
> do check file status ?)

NB: the Manual (A.8.3(4) and so) forces the Read procedure to raise End_Error
if one is after the end of the file - thus this exception can be trusted,
can't it ?
The efficiency (in terms of speed) of the End_Of_File implementations
you've seen is another debate. But in the ((End_Of_File test), Read) pair
it could be not so bad. Surely it has been studied to death...

G.