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: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ell <ell@access5.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops)
Date: 1998/09/02
Message-ID: <i53H1.1212$EW4.489160779@newsreader.digex.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 387012981
References: <slrn6sopmg.4fg.jdege@jdege.visi.com>
   <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <l5HC1.6840$wN.1856764@news.giganews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <m3ogt3qgca.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@news.erols.com>
 <6sdiav$e0g$1@hirame.wwa.com> <u90k5f1j1.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <6sfcft$70p$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6shp40$ec8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6sie46$eb7$1@hirame.wwa.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@digex.net
X-Trace: newsreader.digex.net 904707534 205.197.245.196 (Tue,
 01 Sep 1998 23:38:54 EDT)
Organization: The Universe
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980226 (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m))
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:38:54 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In comp.object Robert Martin <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:

: Phil Goodwin wrote in message <6shp40$ec8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
:>In article <6sfcft$70p$1@hirame.wwa.com>,
:>  "Robert Martin" <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:
:>>
:>> Stephen Leake wrote in message ...
:>> >One entry, one exit. Perfectly clear. There's nothing magic about
:>> >putting the exit statement at the top or the bottom!
:>>
:>> In fact there is.  If the exit condition is at the top or the bottom,
: then
:>> the body of the loop will always be excuted an exact integral number of
:>> times.  However if the loop condition is in the middle, then the loop
: body
:>> will be executed a fractional number of times.
:>
:>So what?


: So...  I can guarantee that any line of code placed at the end of the loop
: body will be executed for each iteration of the loop.

Maybe, juuussst maybe, you like many of the rest of us might be able to
design the loop so that "any line of code placed at the end of loop" 
doesn't matter if the exit/return occurs before the end of the loop?

Elliott
-- 
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Pre-code Modelling  *  Holistic  :=***=:
                 Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
         "The domain object model is the foundation of OOD."
 Check out SW Modeller vs SW Craftite Central : www.access.digex.net/~ell
   Copyright 1998 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied
     without permission only in the comp.* usenet and bitnet groups.