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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,b49755ab898bcffd
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!not-for-mail
From: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: SPARK again : for-loop vs single loop - a strange case
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:17:50 +0200
Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005281258340.31198@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
References: <op.vddp3fvvxmjfy8@garhos>
 <2b6ae662-77e2-4d1a-a2b2-3df54f8ab98e@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vderib0cxmjfy8@garhos>
Reply-To: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature
NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323584-957483763-1275049070=:31198"
X-Trace: tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de 1275045996 1441 141.54.178.228 (28 May 2010
 11:26:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:26:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-X-Sender: lucks@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de
In-Reply-To: <op.vderib0cxmjfy8@garhos>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12118
Date: 2010-05-28T14:17:50+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323584-957483763-1275049070=:31198
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Fri, 28 May 2010, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Or may be I'm wrong ? Do you know a case where a for-loop is better than a
> classic-loop with proofs ?

A for-loop terminates always. 

A classical loop may run forever. One would prove termination by loop 
variants, but SPARK doesn't support loop variants. (I am sure you know 
that.)

I would consider this a reason to prefer for-loops over classical loops. 

-- 
------ Stefan Lucks   --  Bauhaus-University Weimar  --   Germany  ------
               Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------

--8323584-957483763-1275049070=:31198--