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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,56525db28240414a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.24.135 with SMTP id u7mr1303417wif.3.1343314317336;
        Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 ge7ni75826202wib.0!nntp.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.swapon.de!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.visyn.net!visyn.net!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:52:48 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficient Sequential Access to Arrays
References: <9d4d4463-4c7e-40f4-a167-933eb056c6a5@googlegroups.com>
 <ju6u82$8k0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <ca31d36f-3de5-4489-b854-8c87c6ecfa53@googlegroups.com>
 <5007ecf3$0$9507$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <3dbfa883-54c8-4269-a567-26dde8ead4cd@googlegroups.com>
 <72dbbd45-320b-436a-9d81-fcb6d02504e1@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <72dbbd45-320b-436a-9d81-fcb6d02504e1@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <500a9811$0$6639$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jul 2012 13:52:49 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad143107.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=4?A6ZQDFMKLA<A_d>@P]\DA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK_2XE;UOVIGOPCY\c7>ejVHF^D=iNcgORC7LLXRla9X^F
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-21T13:52:49+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21.07.12 10:24, Keean Schupke wrote:
> Ignoring performance which is the best way to structure this? Is there another way I have missed?

If returning had meant a copy anyway, a copying procedure
seems another option.

Also, are there cases where some callback style interface would do?
That is, pass an "algorithm" to the containing structure for
computation much like the Process parameter of Query_Element,
or like when GUI classes expect programmers to write a concrete
implementation of some abstract type that specifies the protocol.