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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fccea7ca608399cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!nospam.fr.eu.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:34:21 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh-bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Vector of Vectors.
References: <496e8418$0$25733$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <aqxbl.525097$yE1.73554@attbi_s21> <6t8gc1F9ej88U1@mid.individual.net>
 <HeNbl.470657$TT4.98639@attbi_s22> <wccab9s6z2q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <c6b25ab4-ffc8-49e5-8ab3-18e3bc21b897@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
 <wccbpu5naui.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <497229d8$0$31340$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <wcc7i4ty1wb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wcc7i4ty1wb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4973762d$0$32682$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:34:21 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8c42c9e8.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=@MbJYJA_:=O74okIm;?DS@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIN3oN?X5eQFDA:ho7QcPOVC^^6?m0T2kXG:HMQ5UW9bcC
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3427
Date: 2009-01-18T19:34:21+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> The loop body is usually self explanatory.  E.g:

I wish it were, yes. A loop body _should_ be
elf explanatory.  FWIW, I have not seen a loop
with just single statement in quite a while.
Hope things are in different shape elsewhere.

> for Index in S'Range loop
>     S(Index) := To_Upper_Case(S(Index));
> end loop;
> 
> Do you want me to call it "Convert_Current_Character_To_Upper_Case",
> and wrap it in a procedure by that name?

No, but I think I'd prefer something like

  Iterate(S, Process => To_Upper_Case);

That is, To_Upper_Case is a good name, already.
The loop above is a "for-all" loop, Index is used
for nothing but a concrete, clumsy, and---if you
will---redundant handle of the abstraction "for-all".
So why a detailed loop?