This chapter covers a number of changes. Some are essentially functional changes in their own right such as the addition of modular types, but many of the changes are more to provide a better framework for the establishment of the object oriented programming facilities which are described in the next chapter. The main changes are
It be should be noted that the enhanced forms of access types constitute a major extension to the language in their own right. They provide the more flexible interfacing which was highlighted as one of the four main areas of User Need in I.3.
Type extension, class-wide types and polymorphism are discussed in the next chapter.
The term view is widely used in the description to make it easier to separate properties associated with an entity from properties associated with a particular reference to an entity. For example, a type may have two views, one in places where its full declaration is visible, and one where the type is private. Another example occurs in renaming where two subprogram names may denote the same subprogram, but with different formal parameter names associated with these two different views.
We have generalized the term class to include user-defined classes defined by a type and all its direct and indirect derivatives; we call these derivation classes. The concept of language-defined type classes (such as the discrete class or the real class) allowed the description of Ada 83 to be more economical, and easier to understand. This same economy of definition and understanding is valuable for a user-defined type hierarchy forming a class.
There is a strong distinction between specific types and class-wide types. Specific types are those declared by type declarations, and correspond to Ada 83 types. Each specific tagged type T has an associated class-wide type, T'Class. Class-wide types enable class-wide (polymorphic) programming, because a subprogram with a formal parameter of a class-wide type like T'Class accepts actual parameters for any type covered by the class-wide type (that is, T or any of its derivatives). In the implementation of such a subprogram, the operations of the root type (T in this case) are available. It is also possible to write dispatching operations, which automatically dispatch to the appropriate implementation based on the type tag of the actual parameter. A class- wide operation of a tagged class-wide type usually calls one or more dispatching operations of the specific type.
The universal types which existed in Ada 83 remain and act much as class-wide types for the numeric classes. However, there are important differences which are discussed in 3.3.
To simplify and unify the description of the Ada 95 type model, we have adopted the terms elementary and composite for describing the two major categories of Ada types. Elementary types have no internal structure, and are used to represent simple values. Composite types are made up of components and other internal state, and are used to represent more complex values and objects. There are a number of existing Ada 83 rules, and new Ada 95 rules, that are made simpler by expressing them only in terms of elementary and composite types, rather than by enumerating more specific type classes.
There was much confusion in Ada 83 regarding the distinction between types and subtypes. In Ada 95, only subtypes have names. A type declaration such as
type A is array (Integer range <>) of Float;introduces a first subtype named A. The underlying type has no name. In this case the first subtype is unconstrained. (We now say first subtype rather than first named subtype.) On the other hand a declaration such as
type B is array (Integer range 1 .. 10) of Float;introduces a first subtype named B which is constrained. Another point is that in Ada 83 a type was also a subtype; this is not the case in Ada 95.
This change of nomenclature has no semantic effect; it is designed to simplify later description. In particular, the term type mark is now replaced by subtype mark since it is always the name of a subtype, and one need never say "type or subtype".
The idea of an object is generalized. The result of a function and of evaluating an aggregate are now considered to be (anonymous) constant objects. One consequence of this is that the result of a function call can be renamed; this is particularly useful for limited types, see 7.3. Some things are not objects, for example named numbers are not objects.
We have introduced the term primitive operations to encompass that set of operations that are "tightly bound" to a type, being either explicitly or implicitly declared at the point of the type declaration, and inherited by derivatives of the type. These operations are the closed set that effectively define the semantics of the type. The more general term "operation" of a type is no longer formally used.
Ada 83 used "implicit conversion" to explain how integer literals were usable with any integer type, and how real literals were usable with any real type. For Ada 95, we have adopted a similar mechanism as the basis for class-wide programming. However, rather than using the concept of implicit conversion, the static semantic rules are defined in terms of type resolution between actual parameters and formal parameters. (The implicit conversions still happen but are not part of overload resolution.)
As in Ada 83, if the actual parameter and the formal parameter are of the same type, then the actual matches the formal. However, the type resolution rules also allow certain other combinations. In particular, if a formal parameter is of a class-wide type, then the actual parameter may be of any type in the class. This allows the definition of class- wide operations.
A similar approach is taken with universal types. A formal parameter of a universal type is matched by any type of the corresponding numeric class. Thus the Val attribute (which accepts an operand of type universal_integer) can be matched by any integer type. There is a change to the rules for fixed point multiplication and division which now take universal_fixed operands as explained in 3.3.1 and can thus be matched by any fixed point type.
In addition to class-wide matching, the type resolution rules cover the use of access parameters (not to be confused with parameters of an access type, see 3.7.1). When a formal is an access parameter, only the designated type of the actual parameter is considered for matching purposes. The actual matches the formal if their designated types are the same, or, in the case of tagged types, one is T while the other is T'Class. In addition, for tagged types, changes of representation are not permitted for derived types, so an actual also matches a formal access parameter if the designated type of the actual is covered by the designated type of the formal.
Access parameters allow operations to be defined that take access values rather than designated objects, while still keeping the operation a primitive operation of the designated type. With tagged types, this allows "dispatching on access types" without requiring the access value to be dereferenced first.
Another important change is that the attribute S'Base may be used as a subtype mark generally, rather than strictly as a prefix for other attributes. S'Base denotes an unconstrained subtype of the type of S and is only allowed for elementary types. It is particularly useful within a generic package that might be instantiated with a constrained numeric subtype, since the temporary variables used to perform a calculation might need to be unconstrained, even if the parameters and final result of an operation must satisfy the constraints of the actual constrained subtype.
For example consider the implementation of Generic_Elementary_Functions. We need to allow the user to instantiate the package with a constrained subtype corresponding to Float_Type, but do not wish the calculations to be constrained. Accordingly the parameters and results of the various functions are of the subtype Float_Type'Base.
One potential problem with allowing the declaration of objects of subtype S'Base is that the first subtype (for example S) may have a size clause that takes advantage of the constraints on S. Objects of subtype S'Base cannot generally be limited by the size specified for S. There are several reasons why this problem is not serious in practice:
For Ada 95, we have chosen to build upon the Ada 83 derived type mechanism to provide for type extension (single inheritance) and run-time polymorphism, two fundamental features of object-oriented programming. (Derived types were the existing type inheritance mechanism in Ada 83.) If a new inheritance mechanism had been introduced, perhaps based on "package types" or an explicit "class" construct, inheritance based on derived types would still remain as an almost redundant and complicating alternative inheritance mechanism. Choosing to enhance the basic derived type mechanism provides a single robust inheritance mechanism rather than two potentially conflicting and weaker ones.
Rather than introducing an explicit class construct, we have instead chosen to support user-defined classes via a hierarchy of derived types. The (derivation) class rooted at a type T consists of T and all of its direct and indirect derivatives. The existing Ada 83 rules for derived types ensure that all of the types in the class rooted at T have at least the same set of primitive operations as T, because a derivative may override and add operations, but it cannot eliminate an operation inherited from the parent type.
Having a set of operations that are well defined for all types in a class rooted at some type T makes it meaningful to construct class-wide operations that take advantage of this commonality. Much of the power and economy of object-oriented programming comes from the ability to write such class-wide operations easily.
If an operation is explicitly defined on a class-wide type, then it is a class-wide operation via the type resolution rules.
The existing universal types behave very much as class-wide numeric types. In fact we introduce types root_integer and root_real as the numeric types from which all other numeric types are descended and then the universal types can be considered to be the class-wide types corresponding to these root types.
Ada 83 already had existing operations such as the Val attribute that took an operand of any integer type; in Ada 95 this is described by saying that Val takes an operand of the universal_integer type. These are therefore like class-wide operations.
We mentioned in Chapter 2 that the text of an Ada 95 program can be written using more liberal character sets. In this section we consider the support for character types in the executing program.
As part of providing better support for international character sets, the fundamental character set of Ada 95 is changed from the seven-bit ISO 646 standard, to the eight-bit ISO 8859 standard (which includes Latin- 1). This means that the type Character in package Standard is now an enumeration type with 256 positions, rather than just 128.
This change is not upward compatible for programs that have arrays indexed by Character, or case statements over Character. However, the benefits of accommodating international character sets were felt to outweigh the costs of this upward incompatibility. See X.2.
To facilitate direct use of character literals and string literals from all languages in the international community, a type Wide_Character is declared in package Standard. The type Wide_Character has 2**16 positions, and starts with the 256 enumeration literals of the type Character.
The predefined library package Ada.Characters has a child package Characters.Handling containing useful classification and conversion functions (such as Is_Letter and To_Lower) and a child package Characters.Latin_1 containing constants for the Latin-1 symbol set.
There is also a string type Wide_String indexed by subtype Positive, with component subtype Wide_Character.
The model of numeric types is somewhat different in Ada 95. The overall goal of the change is to give the implementation more freedom for optimizations such as keeping intermediate results and local variables in registers. Most of the change is fine detail that need not concern the normal user and is addressed in the Numerics annex. However, one area that is important in the core language is the somewhat different treatment of universal types and the introduction of the anonymous types root_integer and root_real.
The essence of the root types is that they can be considered as the types from which all other integer and real types are derived. The base range of root_integer is thus System.Min_Int .. System.Max_Int. We will first discuss the integer types and then indicate where the floating types differ.
We have introduced the term base range for the implemented range of a type whereas range refers to the requested range of a particular subtype. Range checks only apply to constrained subtypes; overflow checks always apply. An important consequence is that we either get the mathematically correct answer or Constraint_Error is raised.
Thus if we write
type My_Integer is range -20_000 .. +20_000; MI: My_Integer; MIB: My_Integer'Base;then My_Integer'Range will be -20_000 .. +20_000 and all assignments to variables of the subtype My_Integer such as MI will be checked to ensure that the range is not violated; Constraint_Error is raised if the check fails.
On the other hand, the base range of My_Integer is the range of My_Integer'Base and this will be that of the implemented range which might reflect that of a 16-bit word and thus be -2**15 .. +2**15-1. No range checks apply to assignments to the variable MIB. However, as an optimization, it might be the case that a particular variable of the subtype My_Integer'Base is held in a register and this could have a wider range than the base range of the subtype. The base range is thus the guaranteed minimum implemented range. Nevertheless overflow checks will always apply and MIB will never have a mathematically incorrect value although the value could be outside the base range. For example, consider
X: My_Integer := 18_000; Y: My_Integer := 15_000; ... MIB := X + Y;where we will assume that the computation is not all optimized away by a smart compiler!
(Note that no explicit conversion is needed because My_Integer and My_Integer'Base are both subtypes of the same (unnamed) type. Remember that all types are unnamed.)
If MIB is implemented with its base range then an overflow will occur and result in Constraint_Error because the result is outside the base range. If, however, MIB is held in a 32-bit register, then no overflow will occur and MIB will have the mathematically correct result. On the other hand
MI := X + Y;will always result in Constraint_Error being raised because of the range check upon the assignment.
In the case of the predefined types such as Integer the same rules apply; the subtype Integer is constrained whereas Integer'Base is not. The base range and range happen to be the same. So the declarations
I: Integer; IB: Integer'Base;have a different effect. Checks will apply to assignments to I but not to assignments to IB (but remember that an implementation is always free to add checks if convenient; they may be automatic).
Another possibility for optimization is that an intermediate expression might be computed with a larger range. This is why the predefined operators such as "+" on the predefined types such as Integer have parameters and result of Integer'Base rather than Integer. There are no range checks on these operations (just overflow checks). Now consider
MI := X * Y / 30_000;in which we will assume that the computation is done with the operations of type Integer which has a 16-bit base range on this implementation. If the operations are done from left to right and the operations are performed in 16-bit registers then overflow will occur and Constraint_Error will be raised. On the other hand, the operations might be performed in 32-bit registers in which case overflow will not occur and the correct result will be assigned to MI after successfully performing a range check on the result.
The universal types are types which can be matched by any specific numeric type of their class. We see therefore that the universal types are rather like class-wide types of the respective classes. So universal_integer is thus effectively root_integer'Class.
The integer literals are, of course, of the type universal_integer and so, as in Ada 83, can be implicitly converted to any integer type including the anonymous root_integer. An important distinction between universal and tagged class-wide types is that the latter carry a tag and explicit conversion to a specific type is required which is checked at runtime to ensure that the tag is appropriate, see 3.8.
One consequence of treating universal_integer as matching any integer type is that the rules for the initial expression in a number declaration are more liberal than they were in Ada 83. The initial expression can be of any integer type whereas in Ada 83 it had to be universal; it still of course has to be static.
Similar remarks apply to real types. In the case of floating point types a range check is only applied if the definition contains a range (this is the same rule as for integer type definitions but they always have range anyway). So given
type My_Float is digits 7; type Your_Float is digits 7 range -1.0E-20 .. +1.0E+20;then My_Float is an unconstrained subtype whereas Your_Float is constrained. Range checks will apply on assignments to Your_Float but not to My_Float. The predefined types such as Float are unconstrained; it is considered that their notional definition does not include a range.
Overflow checks apply to floating point computations only if the attribute Machine_Overflows is true as in Ada 83.
By introducing root numeric types, the special Ada 83 rules regarding convertible universal operands are eliminated (only certain simple expressions could be automatically converted in Ada 83). Instead, the distinction between convertible and non-convertible universal operands corresponds directly to the distinction between the universal and specific root numeric types. The operators of the root numeric types return specific root numeric types, and hence their result is not universal (not "implicitly convertible" using Ada 83 terminology). The type resolution rules ensure that these operators accept operands of the universal types, so they may be used on literals and named numbers.
There is an important change to the visibility rules concerning a preference for the root types in the case of an ambiguity. This is discussed in 8.4.
In order to promote precise use of specific hardware the library package Interfaces defines signed integer types corresponding to the hardware supported types with names such as Integer_32 and Integer_16 plus corresponding modular types (see 3.3.2). This package also predefines similar floating types corresponding to the hardware although no names are prescribed.
The description of the real numbers is greatly simplified. The model and safe numbers of Ada 83 have been abandoned because they were not well understood, did not truly provide the portability they sought and obscured the real machine from the specialist. Accordingly the definition of floating point is now in terms of model numbers which roughly correspond to the old safe numbers and are close to the represented numbers. In the case of fixed point the definition is entirely in terms of small and the notion of model numbers no longer applies.
To avoid confusion and to improve the correspondence between the real type attributes and the machine attributes, the attributes are completely redefined so that they more closely correspond to the capabilities of the machine.
The description of model numbers is moved to the Numerics annex because of its specialist nature. For more details consult Part Three of this rationale.
We considered removing floating point and fixed point accuracy constraints from the syntax so that delta and digits would only be specified as part of a real type definition. Indeed, AI-571 concluded that reduced accuracy real subtypes should not be represented with reduced accuracy, making their usefulness in the language questionable. However, they are retained (although considered obsolete) for compatibility because of the different format obtained with Text_IO.
The mixed multiplying operators of the Ada 83 universal numeric types are redefined in Ada 95 in terms of the root numeric types.
There were some essentially unnecessary restrictions on the use of literals in fixed point multiplication and division in Ada 83. These operations now take universal_fixed as their operands and return universal_fixed as the result. However the result must be in a context which provides a specific expected type. As a consequence literals may now be used more freely in fixed point operations and a multiplication or division need not be followed by conversion to a specific type if the context supplies such a type.
So given two fixed point types Fixed1 and Fixed2, we can now write sequences such as
X, Y: Fixed1; Z: Fixed2; ... X := 2.0 * X; X := Y * Z;which were forbidden in Ada 83. Note that multiple operations as in
X := X * Y / Z;remain forbidden since the context does not provide a type (and therefore an accuracy and range) for the intermediate result.
In Ada 95 the integer types are subdivided into signed integer types and modular types. The signed integer types are those with which we are already familiar from Ada 83 such as Integer and so on. The modular types are new to Ada 95.
The modular types are unsigned integer types which exhibit cyclic arithmetic. (They thus correspond to the unsigned types of some other languages such as C.) A strong need has been felt for some form of unsigned integer types in Ada and most compiler vendors have provided their own distinct implementations. This of course has caused an unnecessary lack of portability which the introduction of modular types in Ada 95 will overcome.
As an example consider unsigned 8-bit arithmetic (that is byte arithmetic). We can declare
type Unsigned_Byte is mod 256; -- or mod 2**8;and then the range of values supported by Unsigned_Byte is 0 .. 255. The normal arithmetic operations apply but all arithmetic is performed modulo 256 and overflow cannot occur.
The modulus of a modular type need not be a power of two although it often will be. It might, however, be convenient to use some obscure prime number as the modulus perhaps in the implementation of hash tables.
The logical operations and, or, xor and not are also available on modular types; the binary operations naturally treat the values as bit patterns; the not operation subtracts the value from its maximum. No problems arise with mixing these logical operations with arithmetic operations because negative values are not involved.
The logical operations will be most useful if the modulus is a power of two; they are well defined for other moduli but there are some surprising effects. For example DeMorgan's theorem that
not(A and B) = not A or not Bdoes not hold if the modulus is not a power of two.
The package Interfaces defines modular types corresponding to each predefined signed integer type with names such as Unsigned_16 and Unsigned_32. For these modular types (which inevitably have a modulus which is a power of two) a number of shift and rotate operations are also provided.
It is an important principle that conversion between numeric types should not change the value (other than rounding). Conversion from modular to signed integer types and vice versa is thus allowed provided the value is in the range of the destination; if it is not then Constraint_Error is raised.
Thus suppose we had
type Signed_Byte is range -128 .. +127; U: Unsigned_Byte := 150; S: Signed_Byte := Signed_Byte(U);then Constraint_Error will be raised.
Unchecked conversion can be used to convert patterns out of range. We could neatly write
function Convert_Byte is new Unchecked_Conversion(Signed_Byte, Unsigned_Byte); function Convert_Byte is new Unchecked_Conversion(Unsigned_Byte, Signed_Byte);providing conversions in both directions and then
S := Convert_Byte(U);would result in S having the value -106.
The modular types form a distinct class of types to the signed integer types. There is thus a distinct form for a generic formal parameter of a modular type namely
type T is mod <>;and this cannot be matched by a type such as Integer. Nor indeed can the signed integer form with range <> be matched by a modular type such as Unsigned_32.
The new attribute Modulus applies to a modular type and returns its modulus. This is of particular value with generic parameters.
Decimal types are used in specialized commercial applications and are dealt with in depth in the Information Systems annex. However, the basic syntax of decimal types is in the core language.
A decimal type is a form of fixed point type. The declaration provides a value of delta as for an ordinary fixed point type (except that in this case it must be a power of 10) and also prescribes the number of significant decimal digits. So we can write
type Money is delta 0.01 digits 18;which will cope with values of a typical decimal currency. This allows 2 digits for the cents and 16 for the dollars so that the maximum allowed value is
The usual operations apply to decimal types as to other fixed point types. Furthermore the Information Systems annex describes a number of special packages for decimal types including conversion to human readable output using picture strings.
Much as with modular types there is also a special form for a generic parameter of a decimal type which is
type T is delta <> digits <>;
This cannot be matched by an ordinary fixed point type and similarly the form with just delta <> cannot be matched by a decimal type such as Money.
In Ada 95, the concept of composite types is broadened to include task and protected types. This is partly a presentation issue and partly reflects the generalization of the semantics to allow discriminants on task and protected types as well as on records.
The terms definite and indefinite subtypes are introduced as explained in II.11 when we discussed the generic parameter mechanism. Recall that a definite subtype is one for which an uninitialized object can be declared such as Integer or a constrained array subtype or a record subtype with discriminants with defaults. An indefinite subtype is an unconstrained array subtype or an unconstrained record, protected or task subtype which does not have defaults for the discriminants, or a class- wide subtype or a subtype with unknown discriminants.
As a simple generalization to Ada 83, we have allowed both variables and constants of an indefinite subtype to be declared, so long as an initial value is specified; the object then takes its bounds or discriminants from the initial value. In Ada 83, only initialized constants of such a subtype could be declared. However, the implementation considerations are essentially identical for constants and variables, so eliminating the restriction against variables imposes no extra implementation burden, and simplifies the model.
Here is an example of use
if Answer /= Correct_Answer then declare Image: String := Answer_Enum'Image(Correct_Answer); begin Set_To_Lower_Case(Image); Put_Line("The correct answer is " & Image & '.'); end; end if;
Allowing composite variables without a specified constraint to be declared, if initialized, is particularly important for class-wide types and (formal) private types with discriminant part (<>) since such types have an unknown set of discriminants and thus cannot be constrained. For example, in the case of class-wide types, it would otherwise be hard if not impossible to write the procedure Convert in 4.4.3 since we would not be able to declare the temporary variable Temp.
A private type can now be marked as having an unknown number of discriminants thus
type T(<>) is private;
The main impact of this is that the partial view does not allow uninitialized objects to be declared. If the partial view is also limited then objects cannot be declared at all (since they cannot be initialized). The gives the writer of an abstraction rather more control over the use of the abstraction.
As we have already noted, discriminants are also allowed on task and protected types in Ada 95. (An early draft of Ada 9X also permitted discriminants on arrays and discriminants to be of any nonlimited type. This was, however, felt to be too much of a burden for existing implementations.)
Discriminants are the primary means of parameterizing a type in Ada, and therefore we have tried to make them as general as possible within transition constraints. Task and protected types in particular benefit from discriminants acting as more general type parameters.
In Ada 83, an instance of a task type had to go through an initial rendezvous to get parameters to control its execution. In Ada 95, the parameters may be supplied as discriminant values at the task object declaration, eliminating the need for the extra rendezvous. Variables introduced in the declarative part of the task body can also depend on the task type discriminants, as can the expression defining the initial priority of the task via a Priority pragma. See 9.6 for some detailed examples.
In addition to allowing discrete types as discriminants as in Ada 83, we now also permit discriminants to be of an access type. There are two quite distinct situations. A discriminant can be of a named access type or it can be an access discriminant in which case the type is anonymous. Thus we can declare
type R1(D: access T) is ... type AT is access T; type R2(D: AT) is ...and then the discriminant of R1 is an access discriminant whereas the discriminant of R2 is a discriminant of a named access type. A similar nomenclature applies to subprogram parameters which can be access parameters (without a type name) or simply parameters of a named access type (which was allowed in Ada 83).
Access discriminants provide several important capabilities. Because they impose minimal accessibility checking restrictions, an access discriminant may be initialized to refer to an enclosing object, or to refer to another object of at least the same lifetime as the object containing the discriminant. Access discriminants can only be applied to limited types. Note also that a task and a protected object can have access discriminants.
When an object might be on multiple linked lists, it is typical that one link points to the next link. However, it is also essential to be able to gain access to the object enclosing the link as well. With access discriminants, this reference from a component that is a link on a chain, to the enclosing object, can be initialized as part of the default initialization of the link component. This is discussed further in 4.6.3. For a fuller discussion on how access discriminants avoid accessibility problems see 3.7.1. Further examples of the use of access discriminants will be found in 7.4 and 9.6.
Finally, a derived type may specify a new set of discriminants. For untagged types, these new discriminants are not considered an extension of the original type, but rather act as renamings or constraints on the original discriminants. As such, these discriminants must be used to specify the value of one of the original discriminants of the parent type. The new discriminant is tightly linked to the parent's discriminant it specifies, since on conversion from the parent type, the new discriminant takes its value from that discriminant (presuming Constraint_Error is not raised). The implementation model is that the new discriminants occupy the space of the old. The new type could actually have less discriminants than the old. The following are possible
type S1(I: Integer) is ...; type S2(I: Integer; J: Integer) is ...; type T1(N: Integer) is new S1(N); type T2(N: Integer) is new S2(N, 37); type T3(N: Integer) is new S2(N, N);
The last case is interesting because the new discriminant is mapped onto both the old ones. A conversion from type S2 to T3 checks that both discriminants of the S2 value are the same. A practical use of new discriminants for non-tagged types is so that we can make use of an existing type for the full type corresponding to a private type with discriminants.
type T(D: DT) is private; private type T(D: DT) is new S(D);
In the case of a tagged type, we can either inherit all the discriminants or provide a completely new set. In the latter case the parent must be constrained and the new discriminants can (but need not) be used to supply the constraints.
Thus a type extension can have more discriminants than its parent, which is not true in the untagged case.
A very minor change is that an index specification of an anonymous array type in an initialized declaration can also take the unconstrained form
V: array (Integer range <>) of Float := (3 .. 5 => 1.0, 6 | 7 => 2.0);in which case the bounds are deduced from the initial expression.
Ada 83 had a rule that determined where a named array aggregate with an others choice was permitted; see [RM83 4.3.2(6)]. There were a related set of rules that governed where implicit array subtype conversion ("sliding") was permitted for an array value; see [RM83 3.2.1(16) and 5.2.1(1)]. These rules were constructed to ensure that named array aggregates with others and array sliding were not both permitted in the same context. However, the lack of array sliding in certain contexts could result in the unanticipated raising of Constraint_Error because the bounds did not match the applicable constraint.
For Ada 95, we have relaxed the restrictions on both array sliding and named array aggregates with others, so that both are permitted in all contexts where an array aggregate with just an others choice was legal in Ada 83. This corresponds to all situations where an expression of the array type was permitted, and there was an applicable index constraint; see [RM83 4.3.2(4-8)]. This ensures that sliding takes place as necessary to avoid Constraint_Error, and simplifies the rules on array aggregates with an others choice.
The original Ada 83 restrictions were related to the possible ambiguity between determining the bounds of an aggregate and sliding. In Ada 95, this ambiguity is resolved by stipulating that sliding never takes place on an array aggregate with an others choice. The applicable index constraint determines the bounds of the aggregate.
As an example consider
type Vector is array (Integer range <>) of Float; V: Vector(1 .. 5) := (3 .. 5 => 1.0, 6 | 7 => 2.0);which shows a named aggregate being assigned to V. The bounds of the named aggregate are 3 and 7 and the assignment causes the aggregate to slide with the net result that the components V(1) .. V(3) have the value 1.0 and V(4) and V(5) have the value 2.0.
On the other hand writing
V := (3 .. 5 => 1.0, others => 2.0);has a rather different effect. It was not allowed in Ada 83 but in Ada 95 has the effect of setting V(3) .. V(5) to 1.0 and V(1) and V(2) to 2.0. The point is that the bounds of the aggregate are taken from the context and there is no sliding. Aggregates with others never slide.
Similarly no sliding occurs in
V := (1.0, 1.0, 1.0, others => 2.0);and this results in setting V(1) .. V(3) to 1.0 and V(4) and V(5) to 2.0.
The rules for concatenate (we now use this more familiar term rather than catenate) are changed so that it works usefully in the case of arrays with a constrained first subtype.
In Ada 83 the following raised Constraint_Error, while in Ada 95 it produces the desired result
X: array (1..10) of Integer; begin X := X(6..10) & X(1..5);
In Ada 83, the bounds of the result of the concatenate were 6 .. 15, which caused Constraint_Error to be raised since 15 is greater than the upper bound of the index subtype. In Ada 95, the lower bound of the result (in this constrained case) is the lower bound of the index subtype so the bounds of the result are 1 .. 10, as required.
A record type may be specified as tagged or limited (or both) in its definition. This makes record types consistent with private types, and allows a tagged record type to be declared limited even if none of its components are limited. This is important because only limited types can be extended with components that are limited.
A derived type is a record extension if it includes a record extension part, which has the same syntax as a normal record type definition preceded by the reserved word with. For example
type Labelled_Window(Length : Natural) is new Window with record Label: String(1..Length); end record;
Record extension is the fundamental type extension (type inheritance) mechanism in Ada 95. A private extension must be defined in terms of a record extension. The new discriminants in a discriminant extension are normally used to control the new components defined in the record extension part (as illustrated in the above example).
Record extension is a natural evolution of the Ada 83 concept of derived types. From an implementation perspective, it is relatively straightforward, since the new components may all be simply added at the end of the record, after the components inherited from the parent type.
We considered having other kinds of type extension, including enumeration type extension, task type extension, and protected type extension. However, none of these seemed clearly as useful as record extension, and all introduced additional implementation complexities. In any case, the automatic assignment of tags to type extensions lessens the need for enumeration types, and the added flexibility associated with access to subprogram and dispatching operations makes it less critical to allow task types to be extended.
Type extension of protected objects was another interesting possibility. However, certain implementation approaches do not easily support extension of the set of protected operations, or the changing of the barrier expressions. With some regret therefore it was decided that the benefit of extending protected types was not worth the considerable implementation burden. This is an obvious topic for review at the next revision of Ada.
Type extension is only permitted if the parent type is tagged. Originally we considered allowing any record or private type to be extended, but this introduced additional complexity, particularly inside generics. Furthermore, extending an untagged type breaks the general model that a class-wide type can faithfully represent any value in the class. An object of an untagged class-wide type would not have any provision for holding a value of a type extension, since it would lack a run-time type tag to describe the value.
Record aggregates are only permitted for a type extension if both the extension part and the parent part are fully visible. This corresponds to the principle that if part of a type is private, then it must be assumed to have an unknown set of components in that part. In other words we can only use an aggregate where we can view all the components.
However, extension aggregates can be used provided only that the components in the extension part are visible; we do not need a full view of the type of the ancestor expression. Typically we can provide an expression for the ancestor part. Thus suppose we have
type T is tagged private; ... T_Obj: T := ...; type NT is new T with record I, J: Integer; end record;then we can write an extension aggregate such as
(T_Obj with I => 10, J => 20)
A variation is that we can also simply give the subtype name as the ancestor part thus
(T with I => 10, J => 20)which is essentially equivalent to declaring a temporary default initialized object of the type and then using it as the ancestor expression (this includes calling Initialize in the case of a controlled type, see 7.4). This is allowed even if the ancestor type is abstract and thereby permits the creation of aggregates for types derived from abstract types.
As we have already discussed in II.3, a tagged type may be declared as abstract by the appearance of abstract in its declaration. A subprogram which is a primitive operation of an abstract tagged type may be specified as abstract. An abstract subprogram has no body, and cannot be called directly or indirectly. A dispatching call will always call some subprogram body that overrides the abstract one because it is not possible to create an object of an abstract type.
If a type is derived from an abstract type and not declared as abstract then any inherited abstract subprograms must be overridden with proper subprograms. Note, of course, that an abstract type need not have any abstract subprograms.
The interaction between abstract types and private types is interesting. It will usually be the case that both views are abstract or not abstract. However, it is possible for a partial view to be abstract and the full view not to be abstract thus
package P is type T is abstract tagged private; private type T is tagged ...; end P;
In this case, objects of the type can only be declared for the full view and abstract primitive operations cannot be declared at all. This is because an abstract operation in the visible part would still apply in the private part and would thus be abstract for the nonabstract view.
It is of course not possible for the full view to be abstract and the partial view not to be abstract. This is quite similar to the rules for limitedness. A partial view can be limited and a full view not limited but not vice versa; the key point is that the partial view cannot promise more properties than the full view (the truth) actually has.
Of more interest is private extension where again the partial view could be declared abstract and the full view not abstract. An inherited abstract subprogram would need to be overridden. If this were done in the private part then the partial view of the subprogram would still be abstract although the full view would be of the overriding subprogram and thus not abstract. Thus
package P is type T is abstract tagged null record; procedure Op(X: T) is abstract; end P; with P; package NP is type NT is abstract new P.T with private; private type NT is new T with ...; procedure Op(X: T); -- overrides end NP;
The overriding is essential since otherwise we might dispatch to an abstract operation.
Another point is that an abstract type is not allowed to have an invisible abstract operation since otherwise it could not be overridden. The following difficulty is thus avoided.
package P is type T is abstract ...; procedure Nasty(X: T'Class); private procedure Op(X: T) is abstract; -- illegal end P; package body P is procedure Nasty(X: T'Class) is begin Op(X); end Nasty; end P; with P; package Q is type NT is new P.T with ...; -- not abstract -- cannot see Op in order to override it end Q;
The problem is that we must override Op since by declaring an object of type NT we can then dispatch to Op by calling the procedure Nasty.
The overall motivation for the rules is to ensure that it is never possible to dispatch to a non-existent subprogram body.
A rather different problem arises when we extend a type which is not abstract but which has a function with a controlling result. The old function cannot be used as the inherited version because it cannot provide values for the type extension when returning the result (parameters are not a problem because they only involve conversion towards the root). As a consequence the type must be declared as abstract unless we provide a new function.
A related restriction is that a function with a controlling result cannot be declared as a private operation since otherwise a similar difficulty to that discussed above would arise on type extension. If extension were performed using the partial view then the function would become abstract for the extended type and yet, being private, could not be overridden.
Observe also that since we do not require every abstract subprogram to be explicit, it is possible for a generic package specification to define an abstract record extension of a formal tagged type without knowing exactly which functions with controlling results exist for the actual type.
Finally, note that it is possible to have an abstract operation of a nontagged type. This is fairly useless since dispatching is not possible and static calls are illegal. However, it would be harder to formulate the rules to avoid this largely because an operation can be primitive of both a tagged and nontagged type (although not of two tagged types, see 4.5).
As we have already seen in II.5 and II.6, access types in Ada 95 have been generalized so that they may be used to designate subprograms and also declared objects.
A new attribute designator, Access, has been defined for creating an access value designating a subprogram or object specified in the prefix. For example:
A := Object'Access; -- point to a declared object B := Subprogram'Access; -- point to a subprogram
Full type checking is performed as part of interpreting the Access attribute. An additional accessibility check is performed to ensure that the lifetime of the designated subprogram or object will not end before that of the access type, eliminating the possibility of dangling references.
Although these two extensions to access types share some common terminology and concepts the details are rather different and so we will now discuss them separately in the following sections.
Access types that may designate declared objects are called general access types, as distinguished from pool-specific access types, which correspond to those which were provided by Ada 83.
There are two steps to the use of general access types
General access types have the reserved word all or constant in their definition. We originally considered allowing any (object) access type to designate a declared object (as opposed to an allocated object), but this would have forced all access types to be represented as full addresses. By distinguishing general access types from pool-specific access types, we preserve the possibility of optimizing the representation of a pool-specific access type, by taking advantage of its limited storage-pool size.
A value of a general access type declared with the reserved word all can only designate variables (not constants), and may be used to read and update the designated object. If the reserved word constant is used, then access values may designate constants, as well as variables. An object designated by an access-to-constant value may not be updated via the access value. An allocator for an access-to-constant type requires an initial value and might generally reserve storage in a read-only part of the address space.
There are two important cases where a view is deemed to be aliased (and thus Access can be applied) even though the word aliased does not appear. One is that a parameter of a tagged type is considered to be aliased (see 6.1.2) and the other is where an inner component refers to the current instance of an outer limited type (see 4.6.3).
There is a restriction concerning discriminated records which ensures that we cannot apply the Access attribute to a component that might disappear. This is similar to the rule for renaming which prevents the renaming of a component of an unconstrained variable whose existence depends upon a discriminant.
Indirect access to declared objects is useful for avoiding dynamic allocation, while still allowing objects to be inserted into linked data structures. This is particularly useful for systems requiring link-time elaboration of large tables, which may use levels of indirection in their representation. Such access types are also convenient for returning a reference to a large global object from a function, allowing the object to be updated through the returned reference if desired.
Finally, rather than relying on allocators, it is sometimes appropriate to use a statically allocated array of objects, managed explicitly by the application. However, it may still be more convenient to reference components of the array using access values. By declaring the array components as aliased, the Access attribute may be used to produce an access value designating a particular component.
An interesting example is provided by the following which illustrates the static creation of ragged arrays
package Message_Services is type Message_Code_Type is range 0..100; subtype Message is String; function Get_Message(Message_Code: Message_Code_Type) return Message; pragma Inline(Get_Message); end Message_Services; package body Message_Services is type Message_Handle is access constant Message; Message_0: aliased constant Message := "OK"; Message_1: aliased constant Message := "Up"; Message_2: aliased constant Message := "Shutdown"; Message_3: aliased constant Message := "Shutup"; ... Message_Table: array (Message_Code_Type) of Message_Handle := (0 => Message_0'Access, 1 => Message_1'Access, 2 => Message_2'Access, 3 => Message_3'Access, -- etc. ); function Get_Message(Message_Code: Message_Code_Type) return Message is begin return Message_Table(Message_Code).all; end Get_Message; end Message_Services;
This example is based on Revision Request 018 and declares a static ragged array. The elements of the array point to strings, the lengths of which may differ. The access values are generated by the Access attribute; no dynamic allocation is needed to create the values.
Access types are used extensively in object-oriented applications. To enable the use of access types with the run-time dispatching provided for the primitive operations of tagged types, Ada 95 includes a new kind of in parameter, called an access parameter. We can thus write
procedure P(A: access T);
This is to be distinguished from a parameter of a named access type which already existed in Ada 83. A similar distinction arises with access discriminants as we saw in 3.4.1.
An access parameter is matched by an actual operand of any access type with the same designated type. Furthermore, if a subprogram has an access parameter with designated type T, and the subprogram is defined in the same package specification as the type T, then the subprogram is a primitive operation of T, and dispatches on the tag of the object designated by the access parameter. Inside the subprogram, an access parameter is of an anonymous general access type, and must either be dereferenced or explicitly converted on each use, or passed to another operation as an access parameter.
An important property of access parameters is that they can never have a null value. It is not permitted to pass null as an actual parameter (this is checked on the call) and of course being of an anonymous type another such object cannot be declared inside the subprogram. As a consequence within the subprogram there is no need to check for a null value of the type (neither in the program text nor in the compiled code). Note also that since other objects of the type cannot be declared, assignment and equality do not apply to access parameters.
For a tagged type T and an aliased object X of type T, X'Access and new T are overloaded on all access to T, on all access to T'Class, and on all other access to class-wide types that cover T. These overloadings on access to class-wide types allow allocators and the Access attribute to be used conveniently when calling class-wide operations, or building heterogeneous linked data structures.
Access parameters and access discriminants are important with respect to accessibility which we will now discuss in more detail. The accessibility rules ensure that a dangling reference can never arise; in general this is determined statically. Suppose we have a library package P containing a globally declared access type and a global variable
package P is type T is ...; type T_Ptr is access all T; Global: T_Ptr; end P;then we must ensure that the variable Global is never assigned an access to a variable that is local. So consider
procedure Q is X: aliased T; Local: T_Ptr := X'Access; -- illegal begin Global := X'Access; -- illegal ... Global := Local; ... end Q;in which we have declared a local variable X and a local access variable. The assignment of X'Access to Global is clearly illegal since on leaving the procedure Q, this would result in Global referring to a non-existent variable. However, because we can freely assign access values, we must not assign X'Access to Local either since although that would be safe in the short term, nevertheless we could later assign Local to Global as shown.
Since we do not wish to impose accessibility checks at run-time on normal access assignment (this would be a heavy burden), we have to impose the restriction that the Access attribute can only be applied to objects with at least the lifetime of the access type. The rules that ensure this are phrased in terms of accessibility levels and the basic rule is that the access attribute can only be applied to an object at a level which is not deeper than that of the access type; this is, of course, known at compile time and so this basic accessibility rule is static. This may seem rather surprising since the concept of lifetime is dynamic and so one might expect the rules to be dynamic. However, it can be shown that in the case of named access types, the static rule is precisely equivalent to the intuitive dynamic rule. The reason for this is that the access attribute can only be applied at places where both the object and the access type are in scope; see [Barnes 95] for a detailed analysis. As discussed below, the situation is quite different for access parameters where the type has no name and the checks then have to be dynamic. (In the case of generic bodies, the rule is also dynamic as discussed in 12.3.)
Similar problems arise with discriminants and parameters of named access types. Thus we could not declare a local record with a component of the type T_Ptr. However, access discriminants and access parameters behave differently.
The net result is that the accessibility problems we encountered above do not arise. Revisiting the above example we can write
package P is type T is ...; type T_Ptr is access all T; type Rec(D: access T) is limited record ... end record; Global: T_Ptr; Global_Rec: Rec(...); end P;where we have added the record type Rec with an access discriminant D plus a global record variable of that type. Now consider
procedure Q is X: aliased T; Local_Rec: Rec(D => X'Access); -- OK begin Global := Local_Rec.D; -- illegal, type mismatch Global := T_Ptr(Local_Rec.D); -- illegal, accessibility check Global_Rec := Local_Rec; -- illegal, assignment limited type ... end Q;in which we have declared a local record variable with its access discriminant initialized to access the local variable X. This is now legal and the various attempts to assign the reference to X to a more global variable or component are thwarted for the various reasons shown. The straight assignment of the discriminant fails because of a type mismatch. The attempt to circumvent this problem by converting the access type also fails because of an accessibility check on conversions between access types [RM95 4.6]. And the attempt to assign the whole record fails because it is limited.
Access parameters are particularly important since they are the one case where an accessibility check is dynamic (other than in generic bodies). An access parameter carries with it an indication of the accessibility level of the actual parameter. Dynamic checks can then be made when necessary as for example when converting to an external named access type. Consider
procedure Main is type T is ...; type A is access all T; Ptr: A := null; procedure P(XP: access T) is begin Ptr := A(XP); -- conversion with dynamic check end P; X: aliased T; begin P(X'Access); end Main;
The conversion compares the accessibility level of the object X passed as parameter with that of the destination type A; they are both the same and so the check passes. Observe that if the destination type A were declared inside P then the check can be (and is) performed statically. So not all conversions of access parameters require dynamic checks.
Another possibility is where one access parameter is passed on as an actual parameter to another access parameter. There are a number of different situations that can arise acording to the relative positions of the subprograms concerned; the various possibilities are analysed in detail in [Barnes 95] where it is shown that the implementation technique given in [AARM 3.10.2(22)] precisely meets the requirements of the rules. The rules themselves are in [RM95 3.10.2 and 4.6].
Without access parameters, the manipulation of access discriminants would be difficult. Given
procedure P(A: access T);then we can satisfactorily make calls such as
P(Local_Rec.D);in order to manipulate the data referenced by the discriminant. On the other hand declaring
procedure P(A: T_Ptr);would be useless for the manipulation of the discriminant because the necessary type conversion on the call would inevitably be illegal for reasons of accessibility mentioned above.
As a first example of the use of access discriminants we will consider the case of an iterator over a set. This is typical of a situation where we want a reference from one object to another. The iterator contains a means of referring to the set in question and the element within it to be operated upon next. Consider
generic type Element is private; package Sets is type Set is limited private; ... -- various set operations type Iterator(S: access Set) is limited private; procedure Start(I: Iterator); function Done(I: Iterator) return Boolean; procedure Next(I: in out Iterator); function Get_Element(I: Iterator) return Element; procedure Set_Element(I: in out Iterator; E: Element); private type Node; type Ptr is access Node; type Node is record E: Element; Next: Ptr; end record; type Set is new Ptr; -- implement as singly-linked list type Iterator(S: access Set) is record This: Ptr; end record; end Sets; package body Sets is ... -- bodies of the various set operations procedure Start(I: in out Iterator) is begin I.This := Ptr(I.S.all); end Start; function Done(I: Iterator) return Boolean is begin return I.This = null; end Done; procedure Next(I: in out Iterator) is begin I.This := I.This.Next; end Next; function Get_Element(I: Iterator) return Element is begin return I.This.E; end Get_Element; procedure Set_Element(I: in out Iterator; E: Element) is begin I.This.E := E; end Set_Element; end Sets;
The subprograms Start, Next and Done enable us to iterate over the elements of the set with the component This of the iterator object accessing the current element; the subprograms Get_Element and Set_Element provide access to the current element. The iterator could then be used to perform any operation on the values of the elements of the set.
As a trivial example the following child function Sets.Count simply counts the number of elements in the set. (Incidentally note that the child has to be generic because its parent is generic.)
generic function Sets.Count(S: access Set) return Natural; -- Return the number of elements of S. function Sets.Count(S: access Set) return Natural is I: Iterator(S); Result: Natural := 0; begin Start(I); while not Done(I) loop Result := Result + 1; Next(I); end loop; return Result; end Sets.Count; In the more general case the loop might be Start(I); while not Done(I) loop declare E: Element := Get_Element(I); -- get old value begin ... -- do something with it Set_Element(I, E); -- put new value back Next(I); end; end loop;
Note that if Iterator.S were a normal component rather than an access discriminant then we would not be able to initialize it at its point of declaration and moreover we could not make it point to Sets.Count.S without using Unchecked_Access.
Finally note that the procedure Start could be eliminated by declaring the type Iterator as
type Iterator(S: access Set) is record This: Ptr := Ptr(S.all); end record;and this would have the advantage of preventing errors caused by forgetting to call Start.
Ada 95 provides access-to-subprogram types. A value of such a type can designate any subprogram matching the profile in the type declaration, whose lifetime does not end before that of the access type. By providing access-to-subprogram types, Ada 95 provides efficient means to
Access-to-subprogram values are created by the Access attribute. Compile-time accessibility rules ensure that a subprogram designated by an access value cannot be called after its enclosing scope has exited. This ensures that up-level references from within the subprogram will be meaningful when the subprogram is ultimately called via the access value. It also allows implementations to create and dereference these access-to- subprogram values very efficiently, since they can be a single address, or an address plus a "static link".
For Subprogram'Access, the designated subprogram must have formal parameter and result subtypes and a calling convention that statically match those of the access type. This allows the compiler to emit the correct constraint checks, and use the correct parameter passing conventions when calling via an access-to-subprogram value, without knowing statically which subprogram is being called. We call this subtype conformance.
Overload resolution of the Access attribute applied to an overloaded subprogram name represents a new situation in Ada. In Ada 83, the prefix of an attribute was required to be resolvable without context. However, for the Access attribute to be useful on overloaded subprograms, it was necessary to allow the Access attribute to use context to resolve the prefix. Therefore, if the prefix of Access is overloaded, then context is used to determine the specific access-to-subprogram type, and then the parameter and result type profile associated with that access type is used to resolve the prefix.
Indirect access to a subprogram is extremely useful for table-driven programming, using, for example, a state machine model. It is also useful for installing call-backs in a separate subsystem (like the X window system). Finally, it often provides an alternative to generic instantiation, allowing a non-generic parameter to be a pointer to a subprogram, such as for applying an operation to every element of a list, or integrating a function using a numerical integration algorithm.
A number of examples of the use of access to subprogram types will be found in II.5. However a very important use is to provide much better ways of interfacing to programs written in other languages. This is done in conjunction with the pragma Import (essentially replacing Interface) and new pragmas Export and Convention. For details see Part Three.
It should be noted that there is no equivalent to access discriminants or access parameters for access to subprogram types. Apart from any aesthetic consideration of writing such an in situ definition, the key reason concerns the implementation problems associated with keeping track of the environment of such a "subprogram value". As a consequence we cannot, for example, use the access to a local procedure as a parameter of a more globally declared procedure. Such values would in any case not be safely assignable into a global.
The accessibility restrictions mean that access to subprogram values do not provide a mechanism to solve the general iterator problem where the essence is usually to apply some inner procedure over every element of a set with the inner procedure having access to more global variables. One alternative approach is to use access discriminants as discussed in 3.7.1; another, perhaps better, approach is to use type extension as illustrated in 4.4.4.
Generic formal subprograms remain the most general means of parameterizing an algorithm by an arbitrary externally specified subprogram. Moreover they are often necessary anyway. For example, consider a typical mathematical problem such as integration briefly mentioned in II.5. In practice the integration function would inevitably be generic with respect to the floating point type. So a more realistic specification would be
generic type Float_Type is digits <>; package Generic_Integration is type Integrand is access function(X: Float_Type) return Float_Type; function Integrate(F: Integrand; From, To: Float_Type; Accuracy: Float_Type := 10.0*Float_Type'Model_Epsilon) return Float_Type; end Generic_Integration;
Suppose now that we wish to integrate a function whose value depends upon non-local variables and that therefore has to be declared at an inner level. All that has to be done is to instantiate the generic at the same inner level and then no accessibility problems arise. So
with Generic_Integration; procedure Try_Estimate(External_Data: Data_Type; Lower, Upper: Float; Answer: out Float) is -- external data set by other means function Residue(X: Float) return Float is Result: Float; begin -- compute function value dependent upon external data return Result; end Residue; package Float_Integration is new Generic_Integration(Float_Type => Float); use Float_Integration; begin ... Answer := Integrate(Residue'Access, Lower, Upper); end Try_Estimate;
The key point is that the instantiated access type Integrand is at the same level as the local function Residue and therefore the Access attribute can be applied. This technique can of course be used even when there are no generic parameters.
Because Ada 95 supports type extension and has more flexible access types, the possibilities and needs for type conversion become much more extensive than in Ada 83. In Ada 83, type conversion involved only a possible representation change and a possible constraint check. If the conversion succeeded, no components were lost or added, and the conversion was always reversible. There were only three kinds of conversions, between derived types, between numeric types and between array types. Note in particular that there were no conversions between access types (except for the case where the type itself was derived from another access type).
Conversions in Ada 95 are classified as view conversions and value conversions. The general idea is that a view conversion doesn't really perform a conversion but just provides a different view of the object.
View conversions arise in two situations, where the operand is an object of a tagged type, and where the conversion is used as an actual parameter corresponding to a formal in out or out parameter. Other conversions are value conversions. Another way of looking at the difference is that view conversions are for situations where an object is being converted whereas a value conversion can apply to an expression.
The use of a view conversion as a parameter existed in Ada 83; for example where a conversion of an object of say type Integer was used as an actual parameter corresponding to a formal in out parameter of type Float. Such view conversions cause a real change of representation in both directions and indeed view conversions of nontagged types are always reversible.
View conversions of tagged types are different; no change of representation ever occurs; we merely get a different view seeing different properties of the same object. And view conversions of tagged types are generally not reversible because of the possibility of type extension.
For tagged specific types there is an important rule that conversion can only be towards the root type. Conversion of a specific type away from the root type is not possible because additional components will generally be required. Such additional components can be provided by an extension aggregate. As we saw in the example of type Object and its extension Circle from II.1 we can write
Object(C)as an acceptable conversion towards the root but must write
C: Circle; O: Object; ... C := (O with Radius => 12.0);to perform the operation away from the root. (In an early draft of Ada 9X a form of conversion was used for such an extension but it was felt to be confusing and overcomplicate the rules for conversion; it also had generic contract problems.) Note that we have used the named notation for the additional components (in this case only one). Another important point is that the ancestor expression (before with) need not be the immediate ancestor of the target type but can be any ancestor. See also 3.6.1.
The same principle applies in the case of conversions from a tagged class-wide type to a specific type; conversion is only allowed if the tag of the current value of the class-wide object is such that conversion is not away from the root. This is not known statically and so a tag check verifies that the type identified by the tag of the operand matches that of the target type, or is a derivative of it. Constraint_Error is raised if this check fails.
Conversion from a specific type to a class wide type is always allowed implicitly (that is no conversion need be explicitly stated); of course the specific type must be in the class concerned. We could not convert a Low_Alert to Medium_Alert'Class; any attempt would be detected at compile time.
Conversion from one class-wide type to another is also possible. The classes obviously have to have a common ancestor and it may be necessary to check the tag at runtime. If the source class is the same as or a subclass of the target class then clearly no check is necessary.
We will consider the conversion of tagged types in more detail when we discuss redispatching in the next chapter (see 4.5).
Conversion between access types was not possible in Ada 83 (unless one was derived from another); each access type was considered unrelated (even if the accessed types were the same). Another issue was that access values need not necessarily be held as addresses but could be indexes into the relevant pool.
However, the introduction of general access types and access parameters means that the conversion between access types is very necessary.
Conversion from pool specific types to general access types and between general access types is therefore permitted provided the accessed types are the same or are suitably related. But we cannot convert from an access to constant type to an access to variable type because we might thereby obtain write access to a constant. In general a conversion may involve constraint and accessibility checks.
Conversions are particularly useful for programming with access types designating tagged types. Essentially, an access type conversion is permitted if access values of the target type may "safely" designate the object designated by the operand access value; or in other words providing the new view is acceptable for the designated object. Thus a conversion from an access to class-wide type to an access to specific type will require a dynamic check to ensure that the designated object is of the specific type (or derived from it). Generally, conversions between access types to tagged types follow exactly the same rules and involve the same checks as conversions between the designated types. Both conversions effectively give new views of the object concerned.
Conversions between access types (in general) may require accessibility checks to ensure that the new value could not give rise to a dangling reference. It is possible to convert between any general access types (including anonymous access types used as access parameters and discriminants) provided the designated types are the same. An example of access type conversion where an accessibility check is required occurs in 3.7.1. Conversions between access types may also require constraint checks to ensure that any constraints on the accessed subtype are satisfied.
As explained above we have generalized implicit subtype conversions on arrays ("sliding") to apply in more circumstances. These new rules should minimize the times when an unexpected Constraint_Error arises when the length of the array value is appropriate, but the upper and lower bounds do not match the applicable index constraint. In effect, we are treating the bounds as properties of array objects rather than of array values. Array values have a length for each dimension, but the bounds may be freely readjusted to fit the context.
Note also that array conversions require that the component subtypes statically match in Ada 95 whereas the check was dynamic in Ada 83. This is a minor incompatibility but avoids unnecessary runtime checks.
In Ada 83, static expressions were limited to predefined operators applied to static operands, to static attributes or to static qualified expressions. For Ada 95, we have extended the rules so that a static expression can also include items such as membership tests and attributes with static constituents. See [RM95 4.9] for details.
By allowing more constructs in static expressions, the programmer has more freedom in contexts where static values are required. In addition, we ensure more uniformity in what expressions are evaluated at compile- time. Some Ada 83 compilers were aggressive in evaluating compile-time known expressions, while others only evaluated those expressions that were "officially" static. By shifting the definition of static to more closely correspond to compile-time-known, uniformity of efficiency is enhanced.
In addition to generalizing the rules for static expressions, we also require that all static evaluation be performed exactly. Although many compilers already perform all compile-time arithmetic with arbitrary precision, this rule will provide more predictability for the value of a static expression. Note that the exact static value must still be converted to a machine manipulable representation when combined in an expression with non-static values.
Static strings are also introduced for use as parameters of pragmas. There are no other contexts in the standard which require static strings.
Staticness is also relevant in other situations such as subtype conformance (see 6.2). This kind of conformance is required between the parameter and result specifications given in an access to subprogram type definition, and the specification of a potential designated subprogram. Subtype conformance is based on a static match between the subtypes of corresponding parameters and the result, if any. This is necessary because when calling a subprogram via an access to subprogram type, the actual parameters must be prepared and the call must be performed given only the address (and perhaps a static link) for the target subprogram. The way parameters are passed, the constraints that need to be checked, the way the result is returned, and any other calling conventions must be determined completely knowing only the definition of the access-to- subprogram type.
A static subtype match is required for access-to-subprogram matching so that no additional checks on the actual parameters are required when calling indirectly through an access to subprogram type.
There is a general philosophy that static matching is required when two subtypes are involved whereas when only one subtype and a value are involved (as in assignment) then dynamic matching (possibly resulting in Constraint_Error) is applied as it was in Ada 83. Thus static matching is also required in matching the component subtypes in array conversions and matching the subtype indication in deferred constants. This change of philosophy eliminates a number of run-time checks and makes for the earlier detection of errors in such situations.
Ada 83 had a restriction that type, subtype, and object declarations were not permitted after bodies (including body stubs) within a declarative part. This restriction has been removed in Ada 95. The original restriction reflected Ada's Pascal heritage, where the ordering restrictions between declarations are even more restrictive. However, in retrospect, the restriction seems somewhat arbitrary, and forces the separation of declarative items that might more naturally be grouped together, particularly in a package body declarative part.
By removing this restriction, it becomes legal to move local variable declarations of a subprogram body to the end of its declarative part. This ensures that such variables are not accessible for up-level references from nested subprograms declared in the same declarative part. By so doing, it makes it easier for a compiler to allocate such variables to hardware registers, rather than having to keep them in memory locations to support possible up-level references.
Having removed this restriction, it is necessary to rely more heavily on the Ada 83 rule [RM83 13.1(5-7)] that the representation for a type is "frozen" by the appearance of a body (including a body stub). This rule precludes the separation of a representation clause from its associated declaration by a body. In Ada 83, this requirement was a ramification of the syntax, since representation clauses were not allowed to follow bodies syntactically. In Ada 95, the requirement becomes more relevant, since representation clauses are syntactically allowed to appear anywhere in a declarative part.
The requirements for international users
R3.1-A(1) - Base Character Set R3.1-A(2) - Extended Graphic Literals R3.1-A(3) - Extended Character Set Supportare met by the changes to the type Character and the introduction of Wide_Character and associated packages as discussed in 3.2.
The study topic and two requirements regarding subprograms
S4.1-A(1) - Subprograms as Objects R4.1-B(1) - Passing Subprograms as Parameters R4.1-B(2) - Pragma Interfaceare met by access to subprogram types and the pragmas Import, Export and Convention as discussed in 3.7.2.
R6.1-A(1) - Unsigned Integer Operationsis met by the modular types described in 3.3.2.
R6.4-A(1) - Access Values Designating Global Objectsis met by general access types and the study topic
S6.4-B(1) - Low-Level Pointer Operationsis also addressed by general access types and the attribute Unchecked_Access.
R10.1-A(1) - Decimal-Based Typesis met by the decimal types mentioned in 3.3.3. Full support for decimal types is provided by the Information Systems annex to which the reader is referred for further details.
S2.3-A(1) - Improve Early Detection of Errorsis addressed by the introduction of static subtype matching.
R2.2-A(1) - Reduce Deterrents to Efficiencyis addressed by the introduction of the concept of base range for numeric types as discussed in 3.3 and by the removal of the restriction on the order of declarations mentioned in 3.10.
R2.4-A(1) - Minimize Implementation Dependenciesis addressed by the stipulation that all static expressions are evaluated exactly and that rounding of odd halves is always away from zero; see 3.9 and II.12.
Finally we have mentioned one of the items listed under the general requirement
R2.2-B(1) - Understandabilitywhich is that the restriction on order of declarations is now removed.