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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa18fb47ddd229a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-23 02:42:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nntp.theplanet.net!inewsm1.nntp.theplanet.net!easynet-monga!easynet.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "amado.alves" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:40:38 -0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1072176053 89055 80.67.180.195 (23 Dec 2003 10:40:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:40:53 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-Topic: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters Thread-Index: AcPGhgWGXGbV4dS6QlWIcMsrAlUeAQCulUKB X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 10:40:38.0798 (UTC) FILETIME=[34895AE0:01C3C941] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3742 Date: 2003-12-23T10:40:38+00:00 "The current building blocks violate at least one important "ility": readability. You have to instantiate separately, and you have to split the loop body out into a separate procedure, and you have to pass extra paraameters around, all of which means that the pieces of the loop get scattered about. And you have to clutter the namespace with a name for the loop body, which is not (usually) a natural abstraction on its own, and doesn't deserve a separate name. Or you have to use the "cursor" style, which has problems I pointed out elsewhere." (Bob) Ok, maybe we're entering a subjective area here. Personally I don't find = these things more problematic than any proposal I've seen so far, "Java = style interfaces" included. Usually I tackle the above problems using = good old top-down development, encapsulating the implementation = complexity inside meaninfully named subprograms. I'm happier with this = solution than with any proposal I've seen so far. Except generic = parameters ;-)