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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,55f6e230b02eff2f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Containers - nontrivial element access
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:23:34 +0200
Message-ID: <5mg27nFdco18U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1191275759.184463.238350@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <5mdfipFcv1dsU1@mid.individual.net>
 <1191358077.531499.198290@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net CKCoGa7YMmY+acTIZwoy5wvt7fkn8c/wtmkUst2O8bhGT0LyU=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cowo++sOloD3MTpX2p4MNophDMw=
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2258
Date: 2007-10-03T01:23:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On 2 Pa , 01:52, "Alex R. Mosteo" <devn...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure the solution is clunky, unless you consider verbose=clunky.
> 
> The point is that in order to swap data, you need to pass the new
> value to the modifying procedure. Since there are no on-the-fly
> binders, this value has to be provided by additional variable, which
> exists outside of the procedure, which access is passed. This looks
> like a dodgy hack: I provide a procedure, which is not self-contained
> anyway, so I also sneak around the value.

Uh? I think Matthew's solution doesn't use anything extra?

Further example: imagine that containers had this subprogram:

procedure Operate 
  (This : in out Vector;
   I, J :        Index_Type;
   Op   : access not null procedure (L, R : in out Element_Type));

Now, this Operate procedure does Matthew's nested accessing in place and
calls the provided Op procedure. Swapping (or anything else) would be:

declare
   procedure Swap (L, R : in out Whatever) is
   -- You know the deal
begin
   My_Vector.Operate (X, Y, Swap'Access);
end;

Does it look good? This isn't in the containers, but you can provide it
yourself. Is what I thought of yesterday night, but I (mistakenly) thought
you were more concerned with verbosity so I didn't bothered to exemplify.

> 
> I have nothing against the procedure, even if it is longer (/= clunky)
> than what I can do in C++. I have, however, a *serious* problem with
> sneaking this value around.
> This *is* clunky.

Can you summarize it for me? Is Matthew's solution satisfactory? I've passed
a bit fast over the thread :)

> 
>> There are additional differences, if I'm not mistaken (my C++ is a bit
>> outdated). [] is, I think, unchecked (unlike .at()), so you could get a
>> violation with that code that shouldn't be possible in Ada.
> 
> You are half right. The standard does not require [] to be checked. It
> does not forbid it, either.
> 
> The point is not about [], actually, but about references. I might
> have written my example like this:
> 
> swap(people.at(x).salary, people.at(y).salary);
> 
> and then you would not have been able to nit-pick on the possible
> violation. :-)

Of course :). It was just something that came to me when reading your post
and just throw it in with the rest of the lot.

> 
> --
> Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com