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: 2003-12-11 04:45:26 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!teaser.fr!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: "amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: RE: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:43:41 -0000
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.82.1071146630.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
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 1071146631 25255 80.67.180.195 (11 Dec 2003
 12:43:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:43:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Return-Path: <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters
Thread-Index: AcO/dacltL2GFXvmRa6ybBFC32FT8QAbWclN
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2003 12:43:41.0583 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[680FF1F0:01C3BFE4]
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
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3355
Date: 2003-12-11T12:43:41+00:00

<<...
> with premature termination of the iteration done by raising inside
> Apply an exception which Visit_With_In_Param propagates by
> definition.=20

Yeah, that works.  It's not very efficient...>>

In GNAT it is no less efficient than the boolean parameter approach. =
I've checked experimentally. Is it a *real* problem in other =
implementations?

<<...Ada really doesn't have very good support for iterators.>>

I see some weaknesses in Ada, but not this one.

<<...
(Goto haters should consider that exceptions are just like gotos, except
you don't know statically where they're going to -- i.e., exceptions are
*worse* than gotos, from a structured programming point of view.)>>

There are two opposing schools of though regarding the use of exceptions =
for control flow. Obviously I belong to the one that says it's OK.

<<I don't understand the point of Param_Type and Param above.  If you =
want
to pass extra information to Apply, nest the instantiation in a place
where it can see that data.>>

Exactly, cf. example in my previous message.