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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:31 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.
References: <1120474891.635131.216700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <ull468hcm.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <1121573057.159416.274980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1121573057.159416.274980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <42da2eb5$0$20137$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: fab340aa.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=o?FjUSSoBWKUhhl_USDNiOQ5U85hF6f;DjW\KbG]kaMHA@_25la3nbB\B^=X7ZPj[IhP3YJKgE\jLiFlKBSGCJRN
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3646
Date: 2005-07-17T12:11:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitriy Anisimkov wrote:
>    M.Delete (C2);
>    pragma Assert (not Has_Element (C2));
>    pragma Assert (not M.Contains ("two"));
> --  double hash overhead.
> 
>    Replace_Element (C, -2);  -- dangling cursor

I thought the Replace_Element line was the source of an
undetected dangling cursor in your initial example.
Supposedly the new checking is inside Replace_Element,
which now fails with "bad cursor in Replace_Element".

The two asserts above look like "informative" assertions
to me, expressing what Delete has done. They are not in
the library, they are in a client program, and therefore
don't add overhead to library subprograms at all. They
also don't check C.


-- Georg