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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387733574 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <35f51e53.48044143@ <35EEF597.A1119EF4@draper.com> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 21:53:44 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tim McDermott writes: > I guess the moral of the story is that this stuff really is hard, even at 3 > terms. Yes! That's the point I was trying make too. Although I can reason about a disjunction with two or three terms, I still prefer a loop predicate with just one term. By separating the array iteration from the item comparison, I can reason about the two different termination conditions independently. So instead of one (larger) problem with two terms, I have two (smaller) problems, with one term each.