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: a07f3367d7,47fc49812a5e8e38
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: small example, using complex variables in Ada
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <9648de08-0477-40d7-a2ea-0e13e771e94d@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
References: <hunrki$ph7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <6e70b80b-3030-479f-8378-d1281d1fa847@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1006101544390.3765@Bluewhite64.example.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1276181654 21726 127.0.0.1 (10 Jun 2010 14:54:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3)
	Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12571
Date: 2010-06-10T07:54:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 10, 5:48=A0pm, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Ludovic Brenta sent:
>
> | =A0 =A0 Two_Pi_Over_N : constant :=3D 2 * Pi / N;|
>
> That is a good suggestion.
>
> |" =A0 =A0 FOR k in X'range LOOP" =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
>
> No.

Why?

> |" =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 FOR m in data'range LOOP =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
>
> No. Loop down to zero.

Why?

> If utilizing FOR instead of WHILE, then utilize REVERSE.

Generally, FOR is much better than WHILE because, the instant you see
FOR, you know the loop is finite; the moment you see WHILE you must
look at the exit condition and the body of the loop before you know
whether it terminates or not.

> Additionally, loop unrolling should be considered.

I agree with this but the solution would be less general.

--
Ludovic Brenta.