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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89e2d213646aec8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!12.120.4.37!attcg2!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Mneson announcement and help request
Date: 4 Jun 2004 08:11:25 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <cmtRqMX$9du1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <mailman.28.1086105372.391.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <oVavc.34141$js4.3916@attbi_s51>
 <mailman.30.1086145552.391.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org><c9kd3v$i1n$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <mailman.34.1086176483.391.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <c9l0vo$pq3$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <xK-dnZHKcKOszSPdRVn-ug@megapath.net>
 <c9melj$fg6$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <-NSdneXjh7wndyLdRVn-vw@megapath.net>
 <c9p2sg$7rn$1@hercules.btinternet.com> <2f8p9c.0p5.ln@skymaster>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1086354602 21316 192.135.80.34 (4 Jun 2004
 13:10:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:10:02 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1095
Date: 2004-06-04T08:11:25-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <2f8p9c.0p5.ln@skymaster>, "Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
> 
>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
>> news:-NSdneXjh7wndyLdRVn-vw@megapath.net...
>> > My point was that as long as you keep the exception handler and raising
>> out
>> > of the loop (which is certainly true for EOF), it can be quite efficient.
>> In
>> > the normal case (where you read many characters before reaching the end of
>> > the file), it's almost always better to handle the exception. That's
>> because
>> > one exception raise/handling pair is a lot cheaper than 10,000 function
>> > calls, especially one as expensive as EOF.
> 
> I always use the exception mechanism for another reason:
> In the presence of a "malformed" file (i.e. one where the last line has no line terminator before EOF), you may have an unexpected
> End_Error even if End_Of_File was false. Of course, this is outside Ada semantics, but it's the real world that text files are
> sometimes being typed by human beings....

That seems to be restricted to operating systems where the file system
does not handle record semantics.