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: 103376,571930b4ff0bc1ee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-30 13:00:03 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!newsengine.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!nntp.msen.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!bobduff
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Compile time executed functions
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Message-ID: <wccy9tnkm9j.fsf@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:57:44 GMT
References: <3AC03CCE.70E3C2D5@mida.se> <wcck85886j6.fsf@world.std.com>
	<Yd1x6.1652$bY4.4832@www.newsranger.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6273
Date: 2001-03-30T20:57:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> True. I'd think most developers would rather make some attempt to put
> a reasonable limit on the for loop (eg: the maximum possible nodes in
> a list, or something), rather than an arbitrary one. 

But the max length of a list is something like "the size of the address
space".  Anything less is a bug.

- Bob