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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: 2003-12-12 14:22:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!verio!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters Date: 12 Dec 2003 17:22:54 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1071267775 29232 192.74.137.185 (12 Dec 2003 22:22:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:22:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3424 Date: 2003-12-12T17:22:54-05:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter writes: > I agree with Duff in general, but in the case of providing iteration > over a protected structure, one must use an access-to-subprogram > parameter. I don't understand. Why can't one use the usual generic-iterator idea in that case? Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "protected structure"... Maybe you could give an example? - Bob