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-Thread: 103376,5bc4be576204aa20
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Buffer overflow Article - CACM
Date: 15 Nov 2005 20:21:12 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcclkzppeuv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <uYzdf.18228$Zv5.14884@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
 <IpQdf.1206$s14.1071@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <43783810.6080808@obry.net> <e8b1sf16mj2m.eq5dk3rsnk2c$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m2r79jhrqz.fsf@grendel.local> <2jzfmy3kqhw9$.10by8ooz0jy1b.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4379ea6d$0$21945$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
 <15gzlx0mv4n2t$.1ono4o1ozibur.dlg@40tude.net>
 <437a61d0$0$7421$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1132104072 24261 192.74.137.71 (16 Nov 2005 01:21:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:21:12 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6413
Date: 2005-11-15T20:21:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> For sure you can get Constrain_Error using the library,
> and this isn't alwas pleasant. Yet, in which ways is any of the
> following more safe than the other?
> 
>    for I in X'Range loop
>       Modify_Element(X(I));
>    end loop;
> 
>    Iterate(X, Modify_Element'Access);

I'd say the second is less error-prone.  You can't accidentally type
X(J) or B(I) -- the extraneous and irrelevant "I" is not present in the
second example, which is a good thing.  It seems silly in a small
example, but if the loop had a dozen or more lines of code,
or were nested inside another loop, well....

- Bob