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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful
Date: 1998/08/16
Message-ID: <dewar.903278279@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 381660410
References: <dewar.902415458@merv> <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980807124210.21259B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <dewar.902578088@merv>
 <slrn6sopmg.4fg.jdege@jdege.visi.com> <rfzpddz3s2.fsf@bnp-eng.remcomp.com>
 <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <dewar.903074236@merv>
 <6r1e1a$mj$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 903278676 20414 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

JPR says

loop
   Inner: for J in 1 .. N - 1 loop
       if D (J) > D (J + 1) then
          Swap (D(J), D(J + 1));
          exit Inner;
       end if;
end loop;


reflects my intent better. Amusing -- shows how difficult it is to
get rid of the goto, be clearer, *and* be correct all at the same time if
JPR can't do it right.

First the above code is obviously syntactically incorrect, since it is
missing end loop Inner. If we put in the end at the obvious point:

   loop
      Inner: for J in 1 .. N - 1 loop
          if D (J) > D (J + 1) then
             Swap (D(J), D(J + 1));
             exit Inner;
          end if;
      end loop Inner;
   end loop;

then of course we have an infinite loop, since here is no exit from the
outer loop.

An attempt like this (by a *very* experienced programmer :-) helps prove
my point I think ...