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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops)
Date: 1998/10/13
Message-ID: <m3hfx9z3ef.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400537540
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <rfzpddz3s2.fsf@bnp-eng.remcomp.com>
 <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <dewar.903074236@merv>
 <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.903281994@merv>
 <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$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$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <1dg8p3r.vfredh1aou58iN@n207167116191.inetworld.net>
 <6v2nr9$t8l$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <1dgane6.16owv2g7g8ov8N@u2n207167116151.inetworld.net>
 <slrn71blhi.rle.behrends@allegro.cse.msu.edu>
 <1dge7py.7401x8z7ne24N@u2n207167116162.inetworld.net>
 <slrn71goai.j94.behrends@allegro.cse.msu.edu>
 <1dghyt5.oik1lzhxzf2N@n207167116176.inetworld.net>
 <F0LEru.4tH@ecf.toronto.edu>
 <1dgt6f1.1oau40z1p1ueeuN@n207167116181.inetworld.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:49:05 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

claveman@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

>In my entire career I have rarely written the following construct:
>
>                    <loop head>
>                       <procedure call>
>                    end loop
>
>Actually, I can't remember ever doing it, but I assume that I must have
>at least a few times.

>      The above structure, that I don't remember writing, is not a loop
> that fails to contain a procedure call in its body.  It's a loop whose
> body consists entirely of a single procedure call.


I do this from time-to-time, for a for loop body that's getting a long.
Instead of:

   for Index in Index_Type loop
      declare
         <decl's that depend on Index>
      begin
         <lots of stuff here>
      end;
   end loop;


I prefer to do this:
 
   procedure Do_Something (Index : in Index_Type);

   for Index in Index_Type loop
      Do_Something (Index);
   end loop;