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: 103376,5bc4be576204aa20
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:32:37 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: future apps GmbH
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050927 Debian/1.7.8-1sarge3
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Buffer overflow Article - CACM
References: <uYzdf.18228$Zv5.14884@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
 <IpQdf.1206$s14.1071@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <43783810.6080808@obry.net> <e8b1sf16mj2m.eq5dk3rsnk2c$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m2r79jhrqz.fsf@grendel.local> <2jzfmy3kqhw9$.10by8ooz0jy1b.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4379ea6d$0$21945$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
 <15gzlx0mv4n2t$.1ono4o1ozibur.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <15gzlx0mv4n2t$.1ono4o1ozibur.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <437a61d0$0$7421$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 2005 23:31:44 MET
NNTP-Posting-Host: b0437037.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=i^ARb73j[<?cbQG5oOHD^6:ejgIfPPld4jW\KbG]kaM81BZS;MmC656bYfV@J=08E:ljUVjRQ60?2VmnOeiOY3@>g[50F7T5IO2
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6410
Date: 2005-11-15T23:31:44+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:03:11 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ada.Container.
>>>They don't support safe iteration constructs "for I in X'Range loop".
>>
>>Ada.Container does provide safe iteration construct, be
>>suitably defining and/or suggesting what is meant by "safe".
>>
>>OTOH, for I in X'Range loop alone doesn't imply that
>>iteration will be safe.
> 
> 
> As you said, it depends on the definition. Clearly it isn't safe against
> shelling the computer.
> 

For sure you can get Constrain_Error using the library,
and this isn't alwas pleasant. Yet, in which ways is any of the
following more safe than the other?

   for I in X'Range loop
      Modify_Element(X(I));
   end loop;

   Iterate(X, Modify_Element'Access);