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-Thread: 103376,fccea7ca608399cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Vector of Vectors.
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:11:25 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <gl3bvd$m0j$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <496e8418$0$25733$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <aqxbl.525097$yE1.73554@attbi_s21> <6t8gc1F9ej88U1@mid.individual.net>
 <HeNbl.470657$TT4.98639@attbi_s22> <wccab9s6z2q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <c6b25ab4-ffc8-49e5-8ab3-18e3bc21b897@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
 <wccbpu5naui.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <497229d8$0$31340$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <wcc7i4ty1wb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4973762d$0$32682$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <wccfxjgti9o.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1232417581 22547 69.95.181.76 (20 Jan 2009 02:13:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:13:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4417
Date: 2009-01-19T20:11:25-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wccfxjgti9o.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
...
>> I wish it were, yes. A loop body _should_ be
>> elf explanatory.  FWIW, I have not seen a loop
>> with just single statement in quite a while.
>> Hope things are in different shape elsewhere.
>
> Not sure what you mean.  I'm saying that Ada's current support for
> iterators requires you to wrap the loop body in a named procedure.
> The fact that people don't normally wrap loop bodies in procedures
> (when using 'for' and 'while' loops) proves that doing so is a burden.

I've lost the thread of this discussion, but the issue of iterators in Ada 
with proper syntax is trivial IFF the language has the correct features. And 
the feature that the language doesn't have that prevents a relatively easy 
iterator is the one alluded to by the OP. I've spent a good portion of the 
last two months thinking about these issues, and there is no getting around 
the missing way to modify an element in place in a container. (I've several 
times thought that I'd gotten around the problem, but it isn't practical to 
do so.)

Watch Ada-Comment for my take on these problems, some coming very soon 
(tonight, I hope).

                      Randy Brukardt.