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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,6a8952cbe009f3ed
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.76.198 with SMTP id d6mr2681426qak.8.1360304413177;
        Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.58.238 with SMTP id u14mr367359qeq.13.1360304413158; Thu,
 07 Feb 2013 22:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni19278qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no1873899qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 22:20:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <kevg3p$jnn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=130.240.232.139;
 posting-account=Rr9I-QoAAACS-nOzpA-mGxtAlZ46Nb6I
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.240.232.139
References: <db7b4d36-6c49-4501-954e-68ecc55c3d32@googlegroups.com>
 <4905b963-0036-4129-8050-fb26ef0154d6@googlegroups.com>
 <32314026-23ae-45b8-a4c5-e589e7d79de2@googlegroups.com>
 <kdttga$83d$3@dont-email.me>
 <64e3c342-d042-40a2-8a16-b1f0cdff9f16@googlegroups.com>
 <91527f7c-0679-4c21-95c7-a07f3fff265d@googlegroups.com>
 <kejv8v$4nq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <c81e7d23-8757-4a81-9ca2-d540afe0d819@googlegroups.com>
 <kepqng$b08$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <4b654b06-f2d2-4ced-8508-c10e5c84e29d@googlegroups.com>
 <kevg3p$jnn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c9fe8c80-1bc5-499e-9691-a0b223cd9f7b@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Numerical calculations: Why not use fixed point types for
 everything?
From: Ada novice <shai.lesh@gmx.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 06:20:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-02-07T22:20:12-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:03:33 AM UTC+1, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>=20
>=20
> My point was that most loops can be refactored this way unless there is s=
ome=20
>=20
> varying data in them. (And the best loop execution-wise is no loop.) And=
=20
>=20
> indeed, most of the loops like this that I've written involve processing=
=20
>=20
> (summarizing, often) an array of data. In which case you need an array=20
>=20
> index; and usually you can convert that index into the factor by some=20
>=20
> technique. So iteration by fixed point values or the like makes for=20
>=20
> interesting examples, but won't happen that often in practice.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>                                                       Randy.

Thanks for your interesting message. I agree with you that one needs to sim=
plify the code as far as possible. In most situations where I use loops, it=
 is because at each index, I am computing some new variables that need to b=
e stored (for example in a time integration routine). In this case, I can't=
 get rid of the loop construct because of the "varying data".