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: 103376,51bff7cd4c35a15d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr182958pbc.0.1338473498392;
        Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni3913pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin <martin@thedowies.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada2012 : In praise of 'for ... of ... loop'...
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <8e00262b-8ff5-4862-b4a4-d19465a389b1@googlegroups.com>
References: <74e4e6b5-20bd-4388-b4a0-dfbecc8070be@googlegroups.com>
 <4fc4e51d$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <371a4b67-1969-4cd5-90f4-d58a9b276f29@googlegroups.com>
 <jq5sgd$2tu5$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.133.0.8
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338473498 6747 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2012 14:11:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jq5sgd$2tu5$1@adenine.netfront.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=20.133.0.8;
 posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-05-31T07:09:38-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:30:21 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 01:10 AM, Martin wrote:
> >
> >        for Comment of Header_Comments loop
> >           Put_Line (File, Comment_Str&  Comment);
> >        end loop;
> >        if Include_Last_Saved_Time then
> >           Put_Line (File, Comment_Str&  "Last saved: "&  Image (Date =
=3D>  Clock));
> >        end if;
> >        for Section of This.Sections loop
> >           Put_Line (File, "["&  To_String (Section.Name)&  "]");
> >           for Pair of Section.Pairs loop
> >              Put_Line (File, To_String (Pair.Key)&  "=3D"&  To_String (=
Pair.Value));
> >           end loop;
> >        end loop;
>=20
> This uses 2 inline "for" loops, one containing a nested "for loop".
>=20
> >        Close (File);
> >     exception
> >        -- implementation detail
> >     end Save;
> >
> > what we used to have (mocked up!):
>=20
> This uses vector iterators.
>=20
> While this is a nice feature, I don't think it's worth the added language=
=20
> complexity.
>=20
> In general, using "for" loops will be clearer than using iterators. In th=
e case=20
> of vectors (or unbounded arrays, to use their correct name), one can iter=
ate=20
> over them using "for" loops, and the use of iterators for an array abstra=
ction=20
> is a questionable practice:
>=20
> for I in Header_Comments.First_Index .. Header_Comments.Last_Index loop
>     Put_Line (File, Comment_Str & Header_Comments.Element (I) );
> end loop;
>=20
> if ... then
>     ...
> end if;
>=20
> for I in This.Sections.First_Index .. This.Sections.Last_Index loop
>     Section :=3D This.Sections.Element (I);
>     Put_Line ...
>=20
>     for J in Section.Pairs.First_Index .. Section.Pairs.Last_Index loop
>        Pair :=3D Section.Pairs.Element (J);
>        Put_Line ...
>     end loop;
> end loop;
>=20
> I think this is equally clear and requires no additional language complex=
ity.
>=20
> Had your example used sets or maps it would have been a stronger argument=
.
>=20
> --=20
> Jeff Carter
> "He didn't get that nose from playing ping-pong."
> Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
> 110
>=20
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfron=
t.net ---

Sorry, I just find that full of "noise" these days...to many characters tha=
t are just repeated. and 'Section' and 'Pairs' need to be declared somewher=
e too. I know you can get rid of the repetition with some 'renames' or a ne=
sted subprogram but that's just "noise" and makes more work for the reader.

Aside from the benefits Pascal mentions, the new syntax offers both readabi=
lity *and writability* which is a bit of a departure for the language ;-)

-- Martin