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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4a9672c174a7c9bf,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: fmanning@netmedia.com
Subject: For loop step size
Date: 1998/08/07
Message-ID: <6qfvjl$v2e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 378950586
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 PROVIDER
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Aug 07 22:37:41 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95)
Date: 1998-08-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Concerning the restriction on step sizes in for-loops -- I'm writing a
Basic compiler for a small 8-bit microcontroller. The language is a
subset of Visual Basic. Since the processor is small, time is short and
VB is big, we can only implement a small subset of the language.

Being an Ada-phile, I naturally tend to pick a subset that is as
Ada-like as possible.

For example, strong typing is used, for-next loops are restricted to
discrete types, and the step size is restricted to +/-1. The step size
restriction in particular has caused some consternation.

I read through the Jan 97 thread in cla when this subject came up, and
I think I understand the basic rationale for the Ada restriction --
that is, programmers are prone to making mistakes in getting loops
to terminate correctly if step sizes are arbitrary.

I guess my question is whether this same rationale makes sense for
a language as different as VB. Looking for ammunition...

-- Frank Manning

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum