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: 103376,da5197b9dca0ed40
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Processing array subsections, a newbie question.
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:23:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: 
 <alpine.LRH.2.00.1006141902370.14982@64bit-RedHat-Enterprise-Linux6beta>
References: <4c13db30$0$2391$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:22:54 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="kheEuXGHhE2Z5eF1gAST+A";
	logging-data="16567"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qyS4kGGMRhTj4DWoWVCklJ461DscyXzOO3p21tRYN5g=="
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
In-Reply-To: <4c13db30$0$2391$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WCr/q5zfKuCMmpgIL226xQPIgiQ=
X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul@64bit-RedHat-Enterprise-Linux6beta
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11719
Date: 2010-06-14T19:23:24+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Peter C. Chapin sent:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                         |
|                                                                              |
|I want to invoke this procedure repeatedly on a particular buffer such that   |
|each invocation picks up where the previous invocation left off. For example  |
|                                                                              |
|Ok        : Boolean := True;                                                  |
|Index_Fst : Natural := Buffer'First;                                          |
|Index_Lst : Natural;                                                          |
|...                                                                           |
|                                                                              |
|while Ok and Index_Fst <= Buffer'Last loop                                    |
|  Do_Something(Buffer, Index_Fst, Index_Lst, Ok);                             |
|  Index_Fst := Index_Lst + 1;                                                 |
|end loop;                                                                     |
|                                                                              |
|The problem with this code is that the assignment to Index_Fst inside the loop|
|might raise Constraint_Error if Index_Lst = Buffer'Last after Do_Something    |
|finishes. I can work around this problem but my solutions tend to be rather   |
|ungainly looking. Surely there must be an easy way to handle this.            |
|                                                                              |
|Peter"                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

You seemed to dislike the good idea of using different ranges for the
cursors and the array mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

So how about something like
...
Index_Lst : integer := Buffer'First-1; --Hmm, perhaps I have merely
                                       --moved your disliked extra 1.
...

while Ok and Index_Lst + 1 <= Buffer'Last loop
  Index_Fst := Index_Lst + 1;
  Do_Something(Buffer, Index_Fst, Index_Lst, Ok);
end loop;
?

It is a pity that I have introduced code cloning, but looping without
sticking to predominant forms can have this consequence in any
language I can think of (well, just the languages which have already
been defined, that is, excluding languages we can devise).

I really do not approve of the names Index_Fst and Index_Lst. How many
people reading this have still not noticed Index_Fst is not in this
version's condition? Be candid.

I wish Ada success on student satellites!

Regards,
Colin Paul