From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Quantified expressions: no support for restriction predicates
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:35:18 -0400
Date: 2012-04-29T15:35:18-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcc7gwywcuh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9912125.1780.1335724639338.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynee1
phil.clayton@lineone.net writes:
> Is that actually possible for a Dynamic_Predicate? Section 3.2.4 Subtype Predicates, para 27/3 says:
>
> The discrete_subtype_definition of a loop_parameter_specification
> shall not denote ... or any subtype to which Dynamic_Predicate
> specifications apply.
Yeah, I think you're right. The idea is that we didn't want hidden
inefficiencies.
type T is new Integer with
Dynamic_Predicate => T mod 10_000 = 0;
for X in T loop -- Illegal!
If that were legal, it would probably be grossly inefficient.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-29 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-27 0:29 Quantified expressions: no support for restriction predicates phil.clayton
2012-04-27 23:43 ` Randy Brukardt
2012-04-28 11:30 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-29 14:03 ` Robert A Duff
2012-04-29 18:37 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-29 19:35 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2012-05-01 2:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2012-05-01 11:35 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-30 15:57 ` Adam Beneschan
2012-05-01 11:14 ` phil.clayton
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox