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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software
 landmines (loops))
Date: 1998/10/29
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.981029105421.106526B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 406252460
References: <udn26gxgsi.fsf@tanana.llnl.gov> <718lct$qk1$1@supernews.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: The hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Pat Rogers wrote:

> One does have to be careful, though.  Consider:
> 
> function Next( This : Some_Discrete_Type ) return
> Some_Discrete_Type is
> begin
>   return Some_Discrete_Type'Succ(This);
> exception
>   when Constraint_Error =>
>     return Some_Discrete_Type'First;
> end Next;
> 
>  In such cases the explicit, hand-coded check is
> preferable, IMHO:
> 
> function Next( This : Some_Discrete_Type ) return
> Some_Discrete_Type is
> begin
>   if This = Some_Discrete_Type'Last then
>     return Some_Discrete_Type'First;
>   else
>     return  Some_Discrete_Type'Succ(This);
>   end if;
> end Next;
> 

In this example, I for one would think both approaches are viable. Maybe I
would even prefer the IF approach. 

This is not the example for misusing valdity checks. 

What I find ugy is things like this:

i:integer

if i<0 then <some error handling>

instead of
 i:Natural

This kind of coding style doesn't allow the reader to stop checking for
himself the i is indeed always non negative.

Ehud Lamm     mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il