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,LOTS_OF_MONEY,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d748e86b56b1269
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-28 13:36:51 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!wn12feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "James S. Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>
From: "James S. Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <mailman.30.1043651980.4961.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301270746.6ad4c4b0@posting.google.com>
 <PriZ9.6187$rq4.561874@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301271851.7c907f60@posting.google.com>
 <lFmZ9.18308$zF6.1340596@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301280414.6ac8d45e@posting.google.com>
 <hGwZ9.19365$zF6.1390291@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <5ad0dd8a.0301281220.448bc12e@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Prefix to 'ACCESS must either statically match... But why?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <TJCZ9.7769$rq4.678319@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:36:51 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.37.178
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1043789811 12.86.37.178 (Tue,
 28 Jan 2003 21:36:51 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:36:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33518
Date: 2003-01-28T21:36:51+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Wojtek Narczynski" <wojtek@power.com.pl> wrote in message
news:5ad0dd8a.0301281220.448bc12e@posting.google.com...
> "James S. Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<hGwZ9.19365$zF6.1390291@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > Since this is a parameter array, why not merely return an array of
> > index pairs? The index pairs can index the beginning and end of
> > each array slice.
>
> That's rigth! I haven't thought about it. Thanks!
>
> > The idea of returning a set of "pointers" to pieces of an array is
> > very common in C
>
> Please note that an access to array slice is by no means less safe
> than an access to the whole array. Thus I wish Ada had them.
>

I agree that an access to an array slice is just as safe.
I was merely trying to help you learn the Ada approach to this
kind of a problem. I was trying to explain why the C and Ada
approaches are different.

Jim Rogers