| Ada-95: A guide for C and C++ programmers |
|
|
| by Simon Johnston |
|
|
| 1995 |
|
|
| Welcome |
|
|
| ... to the Ada guide especially written for C and C++ programmers. |
|
|
| Summary |
|
|
| I have endeavered to present below a tutorial for C and C++ programmers to show them what Ada |
| can provide and how to set about turning the knowledge and experience they have gained in C/C++ |
| into good Ada programming. This really does expect the reader to be familiar with C/C++, although |
| C only programmers should be able to read it OK if they skip section 3. |
|
|
| My thanks to S. Tucker Taft for the mail that started me on this. |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| Contents |
|
|
| 1 Ada Basics. |
|
|
| 1.1 C/C++ types to Ada types. |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.1.1 Declaring new types and subtypes. . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.1.2 |
|
|
| Simple types, Integers and Characters. . |
|
|
| 1.1.3 |
|
|
| Strings. {3.6.3} . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.1.4 |
|
|
| Floating {3.5.7} and Fixed {3.5.9} point. . |
|
|
| 1.1.5 Enumerations {3.5.1} and Ranges. |
|
|
| 1.1.6 Arrays {3.6}. |
|
|
| . . . . . . |
|
|
| 1.1.7 Records {3.8}. |
|
|
| . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.1.8 Access types (pointers) {3.10}. . |
|
|
| 1.1.9 Ada advanced types and tricks. . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.1.10 C Unions in Ada, (food for thought). . |
|
|
| 1.2 C/C++ statements to Ada. . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.2.1 Compound Statement {5.6} . |
|
|
| 1.2.2 |
|
|
| if Statement {5.3} . . . . |
|
|
| 1.2.3 |
|
|
| switch Statement {5.4} . |
|
|
| 1.2.4 Ada loops {5.5} . . . . . |
|
|
| 1.2.4.1 while Loop . |
|
|
| 1.2.4.2 |
|
|
| do Loop . . |
|
|
| 1.2.4.3 |
|
|
| for Loop . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.2.4.4 |
|
|
| break and continue . |
|
|
| 1.2.5 |
|
|
| return {6.5} . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 1.2.6 |
|
|
| labels and goto {5.8} . . |
|
|
| 1.2.7 |
|
|
| exception handling {11.2} |
|
|
| 1.2.8 |
|
|
| sub-programs . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.3 Ada Safety. |
|
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 16 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 22 |
|
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
| 25 |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 27 |
|
|
| 28 |
|
|
| 29 |
|
|
| 29 |
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
| 33 |
|
|
| CONTENTS |
|
|
| CONTENTS |
|
|
| 1.3.1 |
|
|
| Static provability. . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 1.3.2 |
|
|
| Predefined exceptions and pragmas. |
|
|
| 1.3.3 Unchecked programming. |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 2 Ada Packages. {7} |
|
|
| 2.1 What a package looks like |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| 2.2 |
|
|
| Include a package in another |
|
|
| . . |
|
|
| 2.3 Package data hiding {7.3} . . . . |
|
|
| 2.4 Hierarchical packages. |
|
|
| . . . . |
|
|
| 2.5 Renaming identifiers. |
|
|
| . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 3 Ada-95 Object Oriented Programming. |
|
|
| 3.1 The tagged type. . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 3.2 Class member attributes. |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 3.3 Class member functions. |
|
|
| . . . . |
|
|
| 3.4 Virtual member functions. |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| 3.5 Static members. |
|
|
| . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 3.6 Constructors/Destructors for Ada. |
|
|
| 3.7 |
|
|
| 3.8 |
|
|
| Inheritance, single and multiple. |
|
|
| public/protected/private. |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 3.9 A more complete example. |
|
|
| . . . |
|
|
| 4 Generics |
|
|
| 4.1 A generic procedure {12.6} . . . |
|
|
| 4.2 Generic packages {12.7} |
|
|
| . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 4.3 Generic types and other parameters {12.4} . |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| IO |
|
|
| 5.1 Ada.Text_IO . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 5.2 Ada.Sequential_IO and Ada.Direct_IO . |
|
|
| 5.3 Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| Interfacing to other languages |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 33 |
|
|
| 34 |
|
|
| 35 |
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
| 38 |
|
|
| 39 |
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
| 41 |
|
|
| 43 |
|
|
| 44 |
|
|
| 44 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 46 |
|
|
| 46 |
|
|
| 49 |
|
|
| 49 |
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
| 53 |
|
|
| 55 |
|
|
| 56 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| CONTENTS |
|
|
| 7 Concurrency |
|
|
| CONTENTS |
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
| 60 |
|
|
| 61 |
|
|
| 61 |
|
|
| 63 |
|
|
| 63 |
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
| 7.1 Tasks |
|
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.1.1 Tasks as threads . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.1.2 A Simple task . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.1.3 Task as types . . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 7.2 Task synchronization (Rendezvouz) |
|
|
| 7.2.1 |
|
|
| entry/accept . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.2 |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.3 |
|
|
| guarded entries . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.4 |
|
|
| delays . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.5 |
|
|
| select else . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.6 |
|
|
| termination . . . . . . . |
|
|
| 7.2.7 |
|
|
| conditional entry calls |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 7.3 Protected types |
|
|
| . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| . |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| Introduction. |
|
|
| This document is written primarily for C and C++ programmers and is set out to describe the Ada |
| programming language in a way more accessible to them. I have used the standard Ada documentation |
| conventions, code will look like this and keywords will look like this. I will include references |
| to the Ada Reference Manual in braces and in italics, {1.1}, which denotes section 1.1. The ARM |
| is reference 1 at the end of this document. Another useful reference is the Lovelace on-line tutorial |
| which is a great way to pick up Ada basics. |
|
|
| I will start out by describing the Ada predefined types, and the complex types, and move onto the |
| simple language constructs. Section 2 will start to introduce some very Ada specific topics and |
| section 3 describes the new Ada-95 Object Oriented programming constructs. Section 5 describes |
| the Ada tools for managing concurrency, the task and protected types, these are worth investing some |
| time getting to grips with. Section 6 is a tour of the Ada IO library and covers some of the differences |
| in concept and implementation between it and C stdio. |
|
|
| Please feel free to comment on errors, things you don’t like and things you would like to see. If I don’t |
| get the comments then I can’t take it forward, and the question you would like answered is almost |
| certainly causing other people problems too. |
|
|
| If you are new to Ada and do not have an Ada compiler handy then why not try the GNAT Ada |
| compiler. This compiler is based on the well known GCC C/C++ and Objective-C compiler and |
| provides a high quality Ada-83 and Ada-95 compiler for many platforms. Here is the FTP site (ftp: |
| //cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat) see if there is one for you. |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| Document Status. |
|
|
| This document is still under revision and I receive a number of mails asking for improvements and |
| fixing bugs and spelling mistakes I have introduced. I will try and keep this section up to date on what |
| needs to be done and what I would like to do. |
|
|
| Current Status |
|
|
| Section 2 More on 2.3 (data hiding) and 2.4 (Hierarchical packages) |
|
|
| Section 3 First issue of this section, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 have additional work planned. They may |
|
|
| also require re-work pending comments. |
|
|
| Section 5 Section 5.3 (streams) not yet done. |
|
|
| Section 6 New sections to be added for each language. |
|
|
| Section 7 Major re-work following comments from Bill Wagner, 7.2.7 added, requires some more |
|
|
| words, and section 7.3 requires more justification etc. |
|
|
| Wish List |
|
|
| I would like to use a consistant example throughout, building it up as we go along. The trouble is I |
| don’t think I have space in an HTML page to do this. |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| Ada Basics. |
|
|
| This section hopes to give you a brief introduction to Ada basics, such as types, statements and |
| packages. Once you have these you should be able to read quite a lot of Ada source without difficulty. |
| You are expected to know these things as we move on so it is worth reading. |
|
|
| One thing before we continue, most of the operators are similar, but you should notice these differ- |
| ences: |
|
|
| Operator |
| Assignment |
| Equality |
| NonEquality |
| PlusEquals |
| SubtractEquals |
| MultiplyEquals |
| DivisionEquals |
| OrEquals |
| AndEquals |
| Modulus |
| Remainder |
| AbsoluteValue |
| Exponentiation |
| Range |
|
|
| C/C++ Ada |
| := |
| = |
| /= |
|
|
| = |
| == |
| != |
| += |
| -= |
| *= |
| /= |
| |= |
| &= |
| % |
|
|
| mod |
| rem |
| abs |
| ** |
| . . |
|
|
| One of the biggest things to stop C/C++ programmers in their tracks is that Ada is case insensitive, |
| so begin BEGIN Begin are all the same. This can be a problem when porting case sensitive C code |
| into Ada. |
|
|
| Another thing to watch for in Ada source is the use of ’ the tick. The tick is used to access attributes |
| for an object, for instance the following code is used to assign to value a the size in bits of an integer. |
|
|
| int a = sizeof(int) * 8; |
|
|
| a : Integer := Integer’Size; |
|
|
| Another use for it is to access the attributes First and Last, so for an integer the range of possible |
| values is Integer’First to Integer’Last. This can also be applied to arrays so if you are |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| passed an array and don’t know the size of it you can use these attribute values to range over it in a |
| loop (see section 1.1.5 on page 11). The tick is also used for other Ada constructs as well as attributes, |
| for example character literals, code statements and qualified expressions ( 1.1.8 on page 16). |
|
|
| 1.1 C/C++ types to Ada types. |
|
|
| This section attempts to outline how to move C/C++ type declarations into an Ada program and help |
| you understand Ada code. Section 1.1.8 introduces some Ada specific advanced topics and tricks you |
| can use in such areas as bit fields, type representation and type size. |
|
|
| Note that ’objects’ are defined in reverse order to C/C++, the object name is first, then the object type, |
| as in C/C++ you can declare lists of objects by seperating them with commas. |
|
|
| int i; |
| int a, b, c; |
| int j = 0; |
| int k, l = 1; |
| i : Integer; |
| a, b, c : Integer; |
| j : Integer := 0; |
| k, l : Integer := 1; |
|
|
| The first three declarations are the same, they create the same objects, and the third one assigns j the |
| value 0 in both cases. However the fourth example in C leaves k undefined and creates l with the |
| value 1. In the Ada example it should be clear that both k and l are assigned the value 1. |
|
|
| Another difference is in defining constants. |
|
|
| const int days_per_week = 7; |
| days_per_week : constant Integer := 7; |
| days_per_week : constant := 7; |
|
|
| In the Ada example it is possible to define a constant without type, the compiler then chooses the |
| most appropriate type to represent it. |
|
|
| 1.1.1 Declaring new types and subtypes. |
|
|
| Before we delve into descriptions of the predefined Ada types it is important to show you how Ada |
| defines a type. |
|
|
| Ada is a strongly typed language, in fact possibly the strongest. This means that its type model is |
| strict and absolutely stated. In C the use of typedef introduces a new name which can be used as a |
| new type, though the weak typing of C and even C++ (in comparison) means that we have only really |
| introduced a very poor synonym. Consider: |
|
|
| typedef int INT; |
| INT a; |
| int b; |
| a = b; // works, no problem |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| The compiler knows that they are both ints. Now consider: |
|
|
| type INT is new Integer; |
| a : INT; |
| b : Integer; |
| a := b; -- fails. |
|
|
| The important keyword is new, which really sums up the way Ada is treating that line, it can be read |
| as "a new type INT has been created from the type Integer", whereas the C line may be interpreted |
| as "a new name INT has been introduced as a synonym for int". |
|
|
| This strong typing can be a problem, and so Ada also provides you with a feature for reducing the |
| distance between the new type and its parent, consider: |
|
|
| subtype INT is Integer; |
| a : INT; |
| b : Integer; |
| a := b; -- works. |
|
|
| The most important feature of the subtype is to constrain the parent type in some way, for example to |
| place an upper or lower boundary for an integer value (see section below on ranges). |
|
|
| 1.1.2 Simple types, Integers and Characters. |
|
|
| We have seen above the Integer type, there are a few more with Ada, these are listed below. |
|
|
| Integer, Long_Integer etc. Any Ada compiler must provide the Integer type, this is a signed integer, |
| and of implementation defined size. The compiler is also at liberty to provide Long_Integer, |
| Short_Integer, Long_Long_Integer etc as needed. |
|
|
| Unsigned Integers Ada does not have a defined unsigned integer, so this can be synthesised by a |
|
|
| range type (see section 1.1.5), and Ada-95 has a defined package, System.Unsigned_Types |
| which provide such a set of types. |
| Ada-95 has added a modular type which specifies the maximum value, and also the feature that |
| arithmatic is cyclic, underflow/overflow cannot occur. This means that if you have a modular |
| type capable of holding values from 0 to 255, and its current value is 255, then incrementing |
| it wraps it around to zero. Contrast this with range types (previously used to define unsigned |
| integer types) in section 1.1.5 below. Such a type is defined in the form: |
|
|
| type BYTE is mod 256; |
| type BYTE is mod 2**8; |
|
|
| The first simply specifies the maximum value, the second specifies it in a more ’precise’ way, |
| and the 2**x form is often used in system programming to specify bit mask types. Note: it is |
| not required to use 2**x, you can use any value, so 10**10 is legal also. |
|
|
| Character {3.5.2} This is very similar to the C char type, and holds the ASCII character set. However |
| it is actually defined in the package Standard {A.1} as an enumerated type (see section |
| 1.1.5). There is an Ada equivalent of the C set of functions in ctype.h which is the package |
| Ada.Characters.Handling. |
| Ada Also defines a Wide_Character type for handling non ASCII character sets. |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Boolean {3.5.3} This is also defined in the package Standard as an enumerated type (see below) |
|
|
| as (FALSE, TRUE). |
|
|
| 1.1.3 Strings. {3.6.3} |
|
|
| Heres a god send to C/C++ programmers, Ada has a predefined String type (defined again in Standard). |
| There is a good set of Ada packages for string handling, much better defined than the set provided by |
| C, and Ada has a & operator for string concatenation. |
|
|
| As in C the basis for the string is an array of characters, so you can use array slicing (see below) to |
| extract substrings, and define strings of set length. What, unfortunatly, you cannot do is use strings as |
| unbounded objects, hence the following. |
|
|
| type A_Record is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| illegal : String; |
| legal |
|
|
| : String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| procedure check(legal : in String); |
|
|
| The illegal structure element is because Ada cannot use ’unconstrained’ types in static declarations, |
| so the string must be constrained by a size. Also note that the lower bound of the size must be greater |
| than or equal to 1, the C/C++ array[4] which defines a range 0..3 cannot be used in Ada, 1..4 |
| must be used. |
|
|
| One way to specify the size is by initialisation, for example: |
|
|
| Name : String := "Simon"; |
|
|
| is the same as defining Name as a String(1..5) and assigning it the value "Simon" seperatly.. |
|
|
| For parameter types unconstrained types are allowed, similar to passing int array[] in C. |
|
|
| To overcome the constraint problem for strings Ada has a predefined package Ada.Strings.Unbounded |
| which implements a variable length string type. |
|
|
| 1.1.4 Floating {3.5.7} and Fixed {3.5.9} point. |
|
|
| Ada has two non-integer numeric types, the floating point and fixed point types. The predefined |
| floating point type is Float and compilers may add Long_Float, etc. A new Float type may be |
| defined in one of two ways: |
|
|
| type FloatingPoint1 is new Float; |
| type FloatingPoint2 is digits 5; |
|
|
| The first simply makes a new floating point type, from the standard Float, with the precision and |
| size of that type, regardless of what it is. |
|
|
| The second line asks the compiler to create a new type, which is a floating point type "of some kind" |
| with a minimum of 5 digits of precision. This is invaluable when doing numeric intensive operations |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| and intend to port the program, you define exactly the type you need, not what you think might do |
| today. |
|
|
| If we go back to the subject of the tick, you can get the number of digits which are actually used by |
| the type by the attribute ’Digits. So having said we want a type with minimum of 5 digits we can |
| verify this: |
|
|
| number_of_digits : Integer := FloatingPoint2’Digits; |
|
|
| Fixed point types are unusual, there is no predefined type ’Fixed’ and such type must be declared in |
| the long form: |
|
|
| type Fixed is delta 0.1 range -1.0..1.0; |
|
|
| This defines a type which ranges from -1.0 to 1.0 with an accuracy of 0.1. Each element, accuracy, |
| low-bound and high-bound must be defined as a real number. |
|
|
| There is a specific form of fixed point types (added by Ada-95) called decimal types. These add a |
| clause digits, and the range clause becomes optional. |
|
|
| type Decimal is delta 0.01 digits 10; |
|
|
| This specifies a fixed point type of 10 digits with two decimal places. The number of digits includes |
| the decimal part and so the maximum range of values becomes -99,999,999.99. . . +99,999,999.99 |
|
|
| 1.1.5 Enumerations {3.5.1} and Ranges. |
|
|
| Firstly enumerations. These are not at all like C/C++s enums, they are true sets and the fact that the |
| Boolean type is in fact: |
|
|
| type Boolean is (FALSE, TRUE); |
|
|
| should give you a feeling for the power of the type. |
|
|
| You have already seen a range in use (for strings), it is expressed as low .. |
| of the most useful ways of expressing interfaces and parameter values, for example: |
|
|
| high and can be one |
|
|
| type Hours |
| type Hours24 is range 0 .. 23; |
| type Minutes is range 1 .. 60; |
|
|
| is new Integer range 1 .. 12; |
|
|
| There is now no way that a user can pass us an hour outside the range we have specified, even to |
| the extent that if we define a parameter of type Hours24 we cannot assign a value of Hours even |
| though it can only be in the range. Another feature is demonstrated, for Hours we have said we |
| want to restrict an Integer type to the given range, for the next two we have asked the compiler |
| to choose a type it feels appropriate to hold the given range, this is a nice way to save a little finger |
| tapping, but should be avoided Ada provides you a perfect environment to specify precisely what you |
| want, use it the first definition leaves nothing to the imagination. |
|
|
| Now we come to the rules on subtypes for ranges, and we will define the two Hours again as follows: |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| type Hours24 |
| subtype Hours is Hours24 range 1..12; |
|
|
| is new range 0..23; |
|
|
| This limits the range even further, and as you might expect a subtype cannot extend the range beyond |
| its parent, so range 0 .. |
|
|
| 25 would have been illegal. |
|
|
| Now we come to the combining of enumerations and ranges, so that we might have: |
|
|
| type All_Days is (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, |
|
|
| Friday, Saturday, Sunday); |
|
|
| subtype Week_Days is All_Days range Monday .. Friday; |
| subtype Weekend is All_Days range Saturday .. Sunday; |
|
|
| We can now take a Day, and see if we want to go to work: |
|
|
| Day : All_Days := Today; |
| if Day in Week_Days then |
|
|
| go_to_work; |
|
|
| end if; |
|
|
| Or you could use the form if Day in range Monday .. |
| extra types. |
|
|
| Friday and we would not need the |
|
|
| Ada provides four useful attributes for enumeration type handling, note these are used slightly differ- |
| ently than many other attributes as they are applied to the type, not the object. |
|
|
| Succ This attribute supplies the ’successor’ to the current value, so the ’Succ value of an object |
|
|
| containing Monday is Tuesday. |
| Note: If the value of the object is Sunday then an exception is raised, you cannot Succ past |
| the end of the enumeration. |
|
|
| Pred This attribute provides the ’predecessor’ of a given value, so the ’Pred value of an object |
|
|
| containing Tuesday is Monday. |
| Note: the rule above still applies ’Pred of Monday is an error. |
|
|
| Val This gives you the value (as a member of the enumeration) of element n in the enumeration. Thus |
|
|
| Val(2) is Wednesday. |
| Note: the rule above still applies, and note also that ’Val(0) is the same as ’First. |
|
|
| Pos This gives you the position in the enumeration of the given element name. Thus ’Pos(Wednesday) |
|
|
| is 2. |
| Note: the range rules still apply, also that ’Last will work, and return Sunday. |
|
|
| All_Days’Succ(Monday) = Tuesday |
| All_Days’Pred(Tuesday) = Monday |
| All_Days’Val(0) = Monday |
| All_Days’First = Monday |
| All_Days’Val(2) = Wednesday |
| All_Days’Last = Sunday |
| All_Days’Succ(All_Days’Pred(Tuesday)) = Tuesday |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Ada also provides a set of 4 attributes for range types, these are intimatly associated with those above |
| and are: |
|
|
| First This provides the value of the first item in a range. Considering the range 0 .. 100 then |
|
|
| ’First is 0. |
|
|
| Last This provides the value of the last item in a range, and so considering above, ’Last is 100. |
|
|
| Length This provides the number of items in a range, so ’Length is actually 101. |
|
|
| Range This funnily enough returns in this case the value we gave it, but you will see when we come |
|
|
| onto arrays how useful this feature is. |
|
|
| As you can see these have no direct C/C++ equivalent and are part of the reason for Ada’s reputation |
| for safety, you can define for a parameter exactly the range of values it might take, it all amounts to |
| better practice for large developments where your interface is read by many people who may not be |
| able to tell that the integer parameter day starts at 0, which indicates Wednesday etc. |
|
|
| 1.1.6 Arrays {3.6}. |
|
|
| Arrays in Ada make use of the range syntax to define their bounds and can be arrays of any type, and |
| can even be declared as unknown size. |
|
|
| Some example: |
|
|
| char name[31]; |
| int track[3]; |
| int dbla[3][10]; |
| int init[3] = { 0, 1, 2 }; |
| typedef char[31] name_type; |
| track[2] = 1; |
| dbla[0][3] = 2; |
|
|
| Name : array (0 .. 30) of Character; -- OR |
| Name : String (1 .. 30); |
| Track : array (0 .. 2) of Integer; |
| DblA |
| : array (0 .. 2) of array (0 .. 9) of Integer; -- OR |
| DblA |
| : array (0 .. 2,0 .. 9) of Integer; |
| : array (0 .. 2) of Integer := (0, 1, 2); |
| Init |
| type Name_Type is array (0 .. 30) of Character; |
| track(2) |
| := 1; |
| dbla(0,3) := 2; |
| -- Note try this in C. |
| a, b : Name_Type; |
| a := b; -- will copy all elements of b into a. |
|
|
| Simple isn’t it, you can convert C arrays into Ada arrays very easily. What you don’t get is all the |
| things you can do with Ada arrays that you can’t do in C/C++. |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| non-zero based ranges. Because Ada uses ranges to specify the bounds of an array then you can |
| easily set the lower bound to anything you want, for example: |
|
|
| Example : array (-10 .. 10) of Integer; |
|
|
| non-integer ranges. |
| In the examples above we have used the common abbreviation for range spec- |
| ifiers. The ranges above are all integer ranges, and so we did not need to use the correct form which |
| is: |
|
|
| array(type range low .. high) |
|
|
| which would make Example above array(Integer range -10 .. |
| where we’re going, take an enumerated type, All_Days and you can define an array: |
|
|
| 10). Now you can see |
|
|
| Hours_Worked : array (All_Days range Monday .. Friday); |
|
|
| unbounded array types. The examples above did demonstrate how to declare an array type. One |
| of Ada’s goals is reuse, and to have to define a function to deal with a 1..10 array, and another for a |
| 0..1000 array is silly. Therefore Ada allows you to define unbounded array types. An unbounded type |
| can be used as a parameter type, but you cannot simply define a variable of such a type. Consider: |
|
|
| Vector is array (Integer range <>) of Float; |
|
|
| type |
| procedure sort_vector(sort_this : in out Vector); |
| Illegal_Variable : Vector; |
| Legal_Variable |
| subtype SmallVector is Vector(0..1); |
| Another_Legal |
|
|
| : Vector(1..5); |
|
|
| : SmallVector; |
|
|
| This does allow us great flexibility to define functions and procedures to work on arrays regardless |
| of their size, so a call to sort_vector could take the Legal_Variable object or an object of |
| type SmallVector, etc. Note that a variable of type Smallvector is constrained and so can be |
| legally created. |
|
|
| array range attributes. |
| If you are passed a type which is an unbounded array then if you want to |
| loop through it then you need to know where it starts. So we can use the range attributes introduced |
| in 1.1.5 to iterate over a given array thus: attributes for array types. Consider: |
|
|
| Example : array (1 .. 10) of Integer; |
| for i in Example’First .. Example’Last loop |
| for i in Example’Range loop |
|
|
| Note that if you have a multiple dimension array then the above notation implies that the returned |
| values are for the first dimension, use the notation Array_Name’attribute(dimension) for |
| multi-dimensional arrays. |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Initialisation by range (Aggregates {}???) When initialising an array one can initialise a range of |
| elements in one go: |
|
|
| Init : array (0 .. 3) of Integer := (0 .. 3 => 1); |
| Init : array (0 .. 3) of Integer := (0 => 1, others => 0); |
|
|
| The keyword others sets any elements not explicitly handled. |
|
|
| Slicing Array slicing is something usually done with memcpy in C/C++. Take a section out of one |
| array and assign it into another. |
|
|
| Large : array (0 .. 100) of Integer; |
| Small : array (0 .. 3) of Integer; |
| -- extract section from one array into another. |
| Small(0 .. 3) := Large(10 .. 13); |
| -- swap top and bottom halfs of an array. |
| Large := Large(51 .. 100) & Large(1..50); |
|
|
| Note: Both sides of the assignment must be of the same type, that is the same dimensions with each |
| element the same. The following is illegal. |
|
|
| -- extract section from one array into another. |
| Small(0 .. 3) := Large(10 .. 33); |
| -- |
|
|
| ^^^^^^^^ range too big. |
|
|
| 1.1.7 Records {3.8}. |
|
|
| You shouldn’t have too much problem here, you can see an almost direct mapping from C/C++ to |
| Ada for simple structures. Note the example below does not try to convert type to type, thus the C |
| char*, to hold a string is converted to the Ada String type. |
|
|
| struct _device { |
|
|
| int major_number; |
| int minor_number; |
| char name[20]; |
|
|
| }; |
| typedef struct _device Device; |
|
|
| type struct_device is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| major_number : Integer; |
| minor_number : Integer; |
| name : String(1 .. 19); |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| type Device is new struct_device; |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| As you can see, the main difference is that the name we declare for the initial record is a type, and |
| can be used from that point on. In C all we have declared is a structure name, we then require the |
| additional step of typedef-ing to add a new type name. |
|
|
| Ada uses the same element reference syntax as C, so to access the minor_number element of an |
| object lp1 of type Device we write lp1.minor_number. Ada does allow, like C, the initialisation |
| of record members at declaration. In the code below we introduce a feature of Ada, the ability to |
| name the elements we are going to initialise. This is useful for clarity of code, but more importantly |
| it allows us to only initialise the bits we want. |
|
|
| Device lp1 = {1, 2, "lp1"}; |
| lp1 : Device := (1, 2, "lp1"); |
| lp2 : Device := (major_number => 1, |
| minor_number => 3, |
| name => "lp2"); |
|
|
| tmp : Device := (major_number => 255, |
|
|
| name => "tmp"); |
|
|
| When initialising a record we use an aggregate, a construct which groups together the members. This |
| facility (unlike aggregates in C) can also be used to assign members at other times as well. |
|
|
| tmp : Device; |
| -- some processing |
| tmp := (major_number => 255, name => "tmp"); |
|
|
| This syntax can be used anywhere where parameters are passed, initialisation (as above) function/procedure |
| calls, variants and discriminants and generics. The code above is most useful if we have a default value |
| for minor_number, so the fact that we left it out won’t matter. This is possible in Ada. |
|
|
| This facility improves readability and as far as most Ada programmers believe maintainability. |
|
|
| type struct_device is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| major_number : Integer := 0; |
| minor_number : Integer := 0; |
| name : String(1 .. 19) := "unknown"; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| Structures/records like this are simple, and there isn’t much more to say. The more interesting problem |
| for Ada is modelling C unions (see section 1.1.10 on page 22). |
|
|
| 1.1.8 Access types (pointers) {3.10}. |
|
|
| The topic of pointers/references/access types is the most difficult, each language has its own set of |
| rules and tricks. In C/C++ the thing you must always remember is that the value of a pointer is the |
| real memory address, in Ada it is not. It is a type used to access the data. |
|
|
| Ada access types are safer, and in some ways easier to use and understand, but they do mean that a |
| lot of C code which uses pointers heavily will have to be reworked to use some other means. |
|
|
| The most common use of access types is in dynamic programming, for example in linked lists. |
|
|
| 16 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| struct _device_event { |
|
|
| int major_number; |
| int minor_number; |
| int event_ident; |
| struct _device_event* next; |
|
|
| }; |
|
|
| type Device_Event; |
| type Device_Event_Access is access Device_Event; |
| type Device_Event is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| major_number : Integer := 0; |
| minor_number : Integer := 0; |
| event_ident |
| : Integer := 0; |
| next : Device_Event_Access := null; |
| -- Note: the assignement to null is not required, |
| -- Ada automatically initialises access types to |
| -- null if no other value is specified. |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| The Ada code may look long-winded but it is also more expressive, the access type is declared before |
| the record so a real type can be used for the declaration of the element next. Note: we have to forward |
| declare the record before we can declare the access type, is this extra line worth all the moans we hear |
| from the C/C++ community that Ada is overly verbose? |
|
|
| When it comes to dynamically allocating a new structure the Ada allocator syntax is much closer to |
| C++ than to C. |
|
|
| Event_1 := new Device_Event; |
| Event_1.next := new Device_Event’(1, 2, EV_Paper_Low, null); |
|
|
| There are three things of note in the example above. Firstly the syntax, we can say directly that |
| we want a new thing, none of this malloc rubbish. Secondly that there is no difference in syntax |
| between access of elements of a statically allocated record and a dynamically allocated one. We use |
| the record.element syntax for both. Lastly that we can initialise the values as we create the |
| object, the tick is used again, not as an attribute, but with parenthases in order to form a qualified |
| expresssion. |
|
|
| Ada allows you to assign between access types, and as you would expect it only changes what the |
| access type points to, not the contents of what it points to. One thing to note again, Ada allows you to |
| assign one structure to another if they are of the same type, and so a syntax is required to assign the |
| contents of an access type, its easier to read than write, so: |
|
|
| dev1, dev2 : Device_Event; |
| pdv1, pdv2 : Device_Event_Access; |
| dev1 := dev2; -- all elements copied. |
| pdv1 := pdv2; -- pdv1 now points to contents of pdv2. |
| pdv1.all := pdv2.all; -- !! |
|
|
| 17 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| What you may have noticed is that we have not discussed the operator to free the memory we have |
| allocated, the equivalent of C’s free() or C++’s delete. |
|
|
| There is a good reason for this, Ada does not have one. |
|
|
| To digress for a while, Ada was designed as a language to support garbage collection, that is the |
| runtime would manage deallocation of no longer required dynamic memory. However at that time |
| garbage collection was slow, required a large overhead in tracking dynamic memory and tended to |
| make programs irratic in performance, slowing as the garbage collector kicks in. The language spec- |
| ification therefore states {13.11} "An implementation need not support garbage collection ...". This |
| means that you must, as in C++ manage your own memory deallocation. |
|
|
| Ada requires you to use the generic procedure Unchecked_Deallocation (see 1.3.3 on page 36) |
| to deallocate a dynamic object. This procedure must be instantiated for each dynamic type and should |
| not (ideally) be declared on a public package spec, ie provide the client with a deallocation procedure |
| which uses Unchecked_Deallocation internally. |
|
|
| 1.1.9 Ada advanced types and tricks. |
|
|
| Casting (wow) As you might expect from what we have seen so far Ada must allow us some way |
| to relax the strong typing it enforces. In C the cast allows us to make anything look like something |
| else, in Ada type coersion can allow you to convert between two similar types, ie: |
|
|
| type Thing is new Integer; |
| an_Integer : Integer; |
| a_Thing : Thing; |
| an_Integer := a_Thing; -- illegal |
| an_Integer := Integer(a_Thing); |
|
|
| This can only be done between similar types, the compiler will not allow such coersion between very |
| different types, for this you need the generic procedure Unchecked_Conversion (see 1.3.3 on |
| page 35) which takes as an argument one type, and returns another. The only constraint on this is that |
| they must be the same size. |
|
|
| Procedure types. {} Ada-83 did not allow the passing of procedures as subprogram parameters at |
| execution time, or storing procedures in records etc. The rationale for this was that it broke the ability |
| to statically prove the code. Ada-95 has introduced the ability to define types which are in effect |
| similar to C’s ability to define pointers to functions. |
|
|
| In C/C++ there is the most formidable syntax for defining pointers to functions and so the Ada syntax |
| should come as a nice surprise: |
|
|
| typedef int (*callback_func)(int param1, int param2); |
|
|
| type Callback_Func is access function(param_1 : in Integer; |
| param_2 : in Integer) |
|
|
| return Integer; |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Discriminant types {3.7}. Discriminant types are a way of parameterising a compound type (such |
| as a record, tagged, task or protected type). For example: |
|
|
| type Event_Item is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Event_ID |
| Event_Info : String(1 .. 80); |
|
|
| : Integer; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| type Event_Log(Max_Size : Integer) is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Log_Opened : Date_Type; |
| Events : array (1 .. Max_Size) of Event_Item; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| First we declare a type to hold our event information in. We then declare a type which is a log of such |
| events, this log has a maximum size, and rather than the C answer, define an array large enough for |
| the maximum ever, or resort to dynamic programming the Ada approach is to instantiate the record |
| with a max value and at time of instantiation define the size of the array. |
|
|
| My_Event_Log : Event_Log(1000); |
|
|
| If it is known that nearly all event logs are going to be a thousand items in size, then you could make |
| that a default value, so that the following code is identical to that above. |
|
|
| type Event_Log(Max_Size : Integer := 1000) is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Log_Opened : Date_Type |
| Events : array (Integer range 1 .. Max_Size) of Event_Item; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| My_Event_Log : Event_Log; |
|
|
| Again this is another way in which Ada helps, when defining an interface, to state precisely what we |
| want to provide. |
|
|
| Variant records {3.8.1}. Anyone who has worked in a Pascal language will recognise variant |
| records, they are a bit like C/C++ unions except that the are very different :-) |
|
|
| Ada variant records allow you to define a record which has 2 or more blocks of data of which only |
| one is visible at any time. The visibility of the block is determined by a discriminant which is then |
| ’cased’. |
|
|
| type Transport_Type is (Sports, Family, Van); |
|
|
| type Car(Type : Transport_Type) is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Registration_Date : Date_Type; |
|
|
| 19 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Colour : Colour_Type; |
| case Type is |
|
|
| when Sports => |
|
|
| Soft_Top : Boolean; |
|
|
| when Family => |
|
|
| Number_Seats : Integer; |
| Rear_Belts : Boolean; |
|
|
| when Van => |
|
|
| Cargo_Capacity: Integer; |
|
|
| end case; |
| end record; |
|
|
| So if you code My_Car : |
| Car(Family); then you can ask for the number of seats in the car, |
| and whether the car has seat belts in the rear, but you cannot ask if it is a soft top, or what its cargo |
| capacity is. |
|
|
| I guess you’ve seen the difference between this and C unions. In a C union representation of the above |
| any block is visible regardless of what type of car it is, you can easily ask for the cargo capacity of |
| a sports car and C will use the bit pattern of the boolean to provide you with the cargo capacity. Not |
| good. |
|
|
| To simplify things you can subtype the variant record with types which define the variant (note in the |
| example the use of the designator for clarity). |
|
|
| subtype Sports_Car is Car(Sports); |
| subtype Family_Car is Car(Type => Family); |
| subtype Small_Van |
|
|
| is Car(Type => Van); |
|
|
| Exceptions {11.1}. Exceptions are a feature which C++ is only now getting to grips with, although |
| Ada was designed with exceptions included from the beginning. This does mean that Ada code will |
| use exceptions more often than not, and certainly the standard library packages will raise a number of |
| possible exceptions. |
|
|
| Unlike C++ where an exception is identified by its type in Ada they are uniquely identified by name. |
| To define an exception for use, simply |
|
|
| parameter_out_of_range : Exception; |
|
|
| These look and feel like constants, you cannot assign to them etc, you can only raise an exception and |
| handle an exception. |
|
|
| Exceptions can be argued to be a vital part of the safety of Ada code, they cannot easily be ignored, |
| and can halt a system quickly if something goes wrong, far faster than a returned error code which in |
| most cases is completely ignored. |
|
|
| System Representation of types {13}. As you might expect with Ada’s background in embedded |
| and systems programming there are ways in which you can force a type into specific system repre- |
| sentations. |
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| type BYTE is range 0 .. 255; |
| for BYTE use 8; |
|
|
| This first example shows the most common form of system representation clause, the size attribute. |
| We have asked the compiler to give us a range, from 0 to 255 and the compiler is at liberty to provide |
| the best type available to hold the representation. We are forcing this type to be 8 bits in size. |
|
|
| type DEV_Activity is (READING, WRITING, IDLE); |
| for DEV_Activity use (READING => 1, WRITING => 2, IDLE => 3); |
|
|
| Again this is useful for system programming it gives us the safety of enumeration range checking, so |
| we can only put the correct value into a variable, but does allow us to define what the values are if |
| they are being used in a call which expects specific values. |
|
|
| type DEV_Available is BYTE; |
| for DEV_Available use at 16#00000340#; |
|
|
| This example means that all objects of type DEV_Available are placed at memory address 340 |
| (Hex). This placing of data items can be done on a per object basis by using: |
|
|
| type DEV_Available is BYTE; |
| Avail_Flag : DEV_Available; |
| for Avail_Flag’Address use 16#00000340#; |
|
|
| Note the address used Ada’s version of the C 0x340 notation, however the general form is base#number# |
| where the base can be anything, including 2, so bit masks are real easy to define, for example: |
|
|
| Is_Available : constant BYTE := 2#1000_0000#; |
| Not_Available: constant BYTE := 2#0000_0000#; |
|
|
| Another feature of Ada is that any underscores in numeric constants are ignored, so you can break |
| apart large numbers for readability. |
|
|
| type DEV_Status is 0 .. 15; |
|
|
| type DeviceDetails is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| status : DEV_Activity; |
| rd_stat: DEV_Status; |
| wr_stat: DEV_Status; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| for DeviceDetails use |
|
|
| record at mod 2; |
|
|
| status |
| at 0 range 0 .. 7; |
| rd_stat at 1 range 0 .. 3; |
| wr_stat at 1 range 4 .. 7; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
| 1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| This last example is the most complex, it defines a simple range type, and a structure. It then defines |
| two things to the compiler, first the mod clause sets the byte packing for the structure, in this case |
| back on two-byte boundaries. The second part of this structure defines exactly the memory image of |
| the record and where each element occurs. The number after the ’at’ is the byte offset and the range, |
| or size, is specified in number of bits. |
|
|
| From this you can see that the whole structure is stored in two bytes where the first byte is stored as |
| expected, but the second and third elements of the record share the second byte, low nibble and high |
| nibble. |
|
|
| This form becomes very important a little later on. |
|
|
| 1.1.10 C Unions in Ada, (food for thought). |
|
|
| Ada has more than one way in which it can represent a union as defined in a C program, the method |
| you choose depends on the meaning and usage of the C union. |
|
|
| Firstly we must look at the two ways unions are identified. Unions are used to represent the data in |
| memory in more than one way, the programmer must know which way is relevant at any point in time. |
| This variant identifier can be inside the union or outside, for example: |
|
|
| struct _device_input { |
|
|
| int device_id; |
| union { |
|
|
| type_1_data from_type_1; |
| type_2_data from_type_2; |
|
|
| } device_data; |
|
|
| }; |
| void get_data_func(_device_input* from_device); |
|
|
| union device_data { |
|
|
| type_1_data from_type_1; |
| type_2_data from_type_2; |
|
|
| }; |
| void get_data_func(int *device_id, device_data* from_device); |
|
|
| In the first example all the data required is in the structure, we call the function and get back a structure |
| which holds the union and the identifier which denotes which element of the union is active. In the |
| second example only the union is returned and the identifier is seperate. |
|
|
| The next step is to decide whether, when converting such code to Ada, you wish to maintain simply |
| the concept of the union, or whether you are required to maintain the memory layout also. Note: the |
| second choice is usually only if your Ada code is to pass such a structure to a C program or get one |
| from it. |
|
|
| If you are simply retaining the concept of the union then you would not use the second form, use the |
| first form and use a variant record. |
|
|
| type Device_ID is new Integer; |
| type Device_Input(From_Device : Device_ID) is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| 22 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| case From_Device is |
|
|
| when 1 => |
|
|
| From_Type_1 : Type_1_Data; |
|
|
| when 2 => |
|
|
| From_Type_2 : Type_2_Data; |
|
|
| end case; |
| end record; |
|
|
| The above code is conceptually the same as the first piece of C code, however it will probably look |
| very different, you could use the following representation clause to make it look like the C code (type |
| sizes are not important). |
|
|
| for Device_Input use |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| From_Device at 0 range 0 .. 15; |
| From_Type_1 at 2 range 0 .. 15; |
| From_Type_2 at 2 range 0 .. 31; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| You should be able to pass this to and from C code now. You could use a representation clause for the |
| second C case above, but unless you really must pass it to some C code then re-code it as a variant |
| record. |
|
|
| We can also use the abilities of Unchecked_Conversion to convert between different types |
| (see 1.3.3 on page 35). This allows us to write the following: |
|
|
| type Type_1_Data is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Data_1 : Integer; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| type Type_2_Data is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Data_1 : Integer; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| function Type_1_to_2 is new Unchecked_Conversion |
|
|
| (Source => Type_1_data, Target => Type_2_Data); |
|
|
| This means that we can read/write items of type Type_1_Data and when we need to represent the |
| data as Type_2_Data we can simply write |
|
|
| Type_1_Object : Type_1_Data := ReadData; |
| : |
| Type_2_Object : Type_2_Data := Type_1_to_2(Type_1_Object); |
|
|
| 1.2 C/C++ statements to Ada. |
|
|
| I present below the set of C/C++ statement types available, with each its Ada equivalent. |
|
|
| Note: All Ada statements can be qualified by a name, this be discussed further in the section on Ada |
| looping constructs, however it can be used anywhere to improve readability, for example: |
|
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Init_Code: |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Some_Code; |
|
|
| end Init_Code; |
|
|
| Main_Loop: |
|
|
| loop |
|
|
| if Some_Value then |
|
|
| exit loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
| end if; |
|
|
| end loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
| Term_Code: |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Some_Code; |
|
|
| end Term_Code; |
|
|
| end A_Block; |
|
|
| 1.2.1 Compound Statement {5.6} |
|
|
| A compound statement is also known as a block and in C allows you to define variables local to that |
| block, in C++ variables can be defined anywhere. In Ada they must be declared as part of the block, |
| but must appear in the declare part just before the block starts. |
|
|
| { |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| declarations |
| statements |
|
|
| declare |
|
|
| declarations |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| 1.2.2 |
|
|
| if Statement {5.3} |
|
|
| If statements are the primary selection tool available to programmers. The Ada if statement also has |
| the ’elsif’ construct (which can be used more than once in any if statement), very useful for large |
| complex selections where a switch/case statement is not possible. |
|
|
| Note: Ada does not require brackets around the expressions used in if, case or loop statements. |
|
|
| if (expression) |
| { |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| } else { |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| if expression then |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| elsif expression then |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| else |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end if; |
|
|
| 1.2.3 |
|
|
| switch Statement {5.4} |
|
|
| The switch or case statement is a very useful tool where the number of possible values is large, and |
| the selection expression is of a constant scalar type. |
|
|
| switch (expression) |
| { |
|
|
| case value: statement |
| default: statement |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| case expression is |
|
|
| => statement |
| when value |
| when others => statement |
|
|
| end case; |
|
|
| There is a point worth noting here. In C the end of the statement block between case statements is a |
| break statement, otherwise we drop through into the next case. In Ada this does not happen, the end |
| of the statement is the next case. |
|
|
| This leads to a slight problem, it is not uncommon to find a switch statement in C which looks like |
| this: |
|
|
| switch (integer_value) { |
| case 1: |
| case 2: |
| case 3: |
| case 4: |
|
|
| value_ok = 1; |
| break; |
|
|
| case 5: |
| case 6: |
| case 7: |
|
|
| break; |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| This uses ranges (see 1.1.5 on page 11) to select a set of values for a single operation, Ada also allows |
| you to or values together, consider the following: |
|
|
| 25 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| case integer_value is |
|
|
| when 1 .. 4 => value_ok := 1; |
| when 5 | 6 | 7 => null; |
|
|
| end case; |
|
|
| You will also note that in Ada there must be a statement for each case, so we have to use the Ada |
| null statement as the target of the second selection. |
|
|
| 1.2.4 Ada loops {5.5} |
|
|
| All Ada loops are built around the simple loop ... end construct |
|
|
| loop |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| 1.2.4.1 while Loop |
|
|
| The while loop is common in code and has a very direct Ada equivalent. |
|
|
| while (expression) |
| { |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| while expression loop |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| 1.2.4.2 do Loop |
|
|
| The do loop has no direct Ada equivalent, though section 1.2.4.4 will show you how to synthesize |
| one. |
|
|
| do |
| { |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| } while (expression) |
|
|
| -- no direct Ada equivalent. |
|
|
| 1.2.4.3 for Loop |
|
|
| The for loop is another favourite, Ada has no direct equivalent to the C/C++ for loop (the most |
| frighteningly overloaded statement in almost any language) but does allow you to iterate over a range, |
| allowing you access to the most common usage of the for loop, iterating over an array. |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| for (init-statement ; expression-1 ; loop-statement) |
| { |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| for ident in range loop |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| However Ada adds some nice touches to this simple statement. |
|
|
| Firstly, the variable ident is actually declared by its appearance in the loop, it is a new variable which |
| exists for the scope of the loop only and takes the correct type according to the specified range. |
|
|
| Secondly you will have noticed that to loop for 1 to 10 you can write the following Ada code: |
|
|
| for i in 1 .. 10 loop |
|
|
| null; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| What if you want to loop from 10 down to 1? In Ada you cannot specify a range of 10 .. |
| 1 as |
| this is defined as a ’null range’. Passing a null range to a for loop causes it to exit immediatly. The |
| code to iterate over a null range such as this is: |
|
|
| for i in reverse 1 .. 10 loop |
|
|
| null; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| 1.2.4.4 break and continue |
|
|
| In C and C++ we have two useful statements break and continue which may be used to add fine |
| control to loops. Consider the following C code: |
|
|
| while (expression) { |
| if (expression1) { |
|
|
| continue; |
|
|
| } |
| if (expression2) { |
|
|
| break; |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| This code shows how break and continue are used, you have a loop which takes an expression to |
| determine general termination procedure. Now let us assume that during execution of the loop you |
| decide that you have completed what you wanted to do and may leave the loop early, the break forces |
| a ’jump’ to the next statement after the closing brace of the loop. A continue is similar but it takes |
| you to the first statement after the opening brace of the loop, in effect it allows you to reevaluate the |
| loop. |
|
|
| In Ada there is no continue, and break is now exit. |
|
|
| 27 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| while expression loop |
| if expression2 then |
|
|
| exit; |
| end if; |
| end loop; |
|
|
| The Ada exit statement however can combine the expression used to decide that it is required, and so |
| the code below is often found. |
|
|
| while expression loop |
|
|
| exit when expression2; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| This leads us onto the do loop, which can now be coded as: |
|
|
| loop |
|
|
| statement |
| exit when expression; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| Another useful feature which C and C++ lack is the ability to ’break’ out of nested loops, consider |
|
|
| while ((!feof(file_handle) && (!percent_found)) { |
|
|
| for (char_index = 0; buffer[char_index] != ’\n’; char_index++) { |
|
|
| if (buffer[char_index] == ’%’) { |
|
|
| percent_found = 1; |
| break; |
|
|
| } |
| // some other code, including get next line. |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| This sort of code is quite common, an inner loop spots the termination condition and has to signal this |
| back to the outer loop. Now consider |
|
|
| Main_Loop: |
| while not End_Of_File(File_Handle) loop |
|
|
| for Char_Index in Buffer’Range loop |
|
|
| exit when Buffer(Char_Index) = NEW_LINE; |
| exit Main_Loop when Buffer(Char_Index) = PERCENT; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
| 1.2.5 |
|
|
| return {6.5} |
|
|
| Here again a direct Ada equivalent, you want to return a value, then return a value, |
|
|
| return value; // C++ return |
|
|
| return value; -- Ada return |
|
|
| 28 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| 1.2.6 |
|
|
| labels and goto {5.8} |
|
|
| Don’t do it !!, OK one day you might need to, so heres how. Declare a label and jump to it. |
|
|
| label: |
|
|
| goto label; |
|
|
| < <label> > |
|
|
| goto label; |
|
|
| 1.2.7 |
|
|
| exception handling {11.2} |
|
|
| Ada and the newer verions of C++ support exception handling for critical errors. Exception handling |
| consists of three components, the exception, raising the exception and handling the exception. |
|
|
| In C++ there is no exception type, when you raise an exception you pass out any sort of type, and |
| selection of the exception is done on its type. |
| In Ada as seen above there is a ’psuedo-type’ for |
| exceptions and they are then selected by name. |
|
|
| Firstly lets see how you catch an exception, the code below shows the basic structure used to protect |
| statement1, and execute statement2 on detection of the specified exception. |
|
|
| try { |
|
|
| statement1 |
|
|
| } catch (declaration) { |
|
|
| statement2 |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| statement1 |
|
|
| exception |
|
|
| when ident => statement2 |
| when others => statement2 |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| Let us now consider an example, we will call a function which we know may raise a particular |
| exception, but it may raise some we don’t know about, so we must pass anything else back up to |
| whoever called us. |
|
|
| try { |
|
|
| function_call(); |
|
|
| } catch (const char* string_exception) { |
|
|
| if (!strcmp(string_exception, "the_one_we_want")) { |
|
|
| handle_it(); |
|
|
| } else { |
| throw; |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| } catch (...) { |
|
|
| throw; |
|
|
| 29 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| function_call; |
|
|
| exception |
|
|
| when the_one_we_want => handle_it; |
| when others => raise; |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| This shows how much safer the Ada version is, we know exactly what we are waiting for and can |
| immediately process it. In the C++ case all we know is that an exception of type ’const char*’ has |
| been raised, we must then check it still further before we can handle it. |
|
|
| You will also notice the similarity between the Ada exception catching code and the Ada case state- |
| ment, this also extends to the fact that the when statement can catch multiple exceptions. Ranges of |
| exceptions are not possible, however you can or exceptions, to get: |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| function_call; |
|
|
| exception |
|
|
| when the_one_we_want | |
|
|
| another_possibility => handle_it; |
|
|
| when others => raise; |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| This also shows the basic form for raising an exception, the throw statement in C++ and the raise |
| statement in Ada. Both normally raise a given exception, but both when invoked with no exception |
| reraise the last one. To raise the exception above consider: |
|
|
| throw (const char*)"the_one_we_want"; |
|
|
| raise the_one_we_want; |
|
|
| 1.2.8 |
|
|
| sub-programs |
|
|
| The following piece of code shows how C/C++ and Ada both declare and define a function. Decla- |
| ration is the process of telling everyone that the function exists and what its type and parameters are. |
| The definitions are where you actually write out the function itself. (In Ada terms the function spec |
| and function body). |
|
|
| return_type func_name(parameters); |
| return_type func_name(parameters) |
| { |
|
|
| declarations |
| statement |
|
|
| } |
|
|
| function func_name(parameters) return return_type; |
| function func_name(parameters) return return_type is |
|
|
| 30 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| declarations |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| statement |
|
|
| end func_name; |
|
|
| Let us now consider a special kind of function, one which does not return a value. In C/C++ this is |
| represented as a return type of void, in Ada this is called a procedure. |
|
|
| void func_name(parameters); |
| procedure func_name(parameters); |
|
|
| Next we must consider how we pass arguments to functions. |
|
|
| void func1(int |
| void func2(int* by_address); |
| void func3(int& by_reference); // C++ only. |
|
|
| by_value); |
|
|
| These type of parameters are I hope well understood by C and C++ programmers, their direct Ada |
| equivalents are: |
|
|
| is new Integer; |
|
|
| type int |
| type int_star is access int; |
| procedure func1(by_value |
| procedure func2(by_address |
| procedure func3(by_reference : in out int); |
|
|
| : in |
| : in out int_star); |
|
|
| int); |
|
|
| Finally a procedure or function which takes no parameters can be written in two ways in C/C++, |
| though only one is Ada. |
|
|
| void func_name(); |
| void func_name(void); |
| int func_name(void); |
|
|
| procedure func_name; |
| function |
|
|
| func_name return Integer; |
|
|
| Ada also provides two features which will be understood by C++ programmers, possibly not by C |
| programmers, and a third I don’t know how C does without: |
|
|
| Overloading Ada allows more than one function/procedure with the same name as long as they can |
| be uniquely identified by their signature (a combination of their parameter and return types). |
|
|
| function Day return All_Days; |
| function Day(a_date : in Date_Type) return All_Days; |
|
|
| The first returns you the day of week, of today, the second the day of week from a given date. They |
| are both allowed, and both visible. The compiler decides which one to use by looking at the types |
| given to it when you call it. |
|
|
| 31 |
|
|
| 1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Operator overloading {6.6} As in C++ you can redefine the standard operators in Ada, unlike C++ |
| you can do this outside a class, and for any operator, with any types. The syntax for this is to replace |
| the name of the function (operators are always functions) with the operator name in quotes, ie: |
|
|
| function "+"(Left, Right : in Integer) return Integer; |
|
|
| Available operators are: |
|
|
| = |
| + |
| * |
|
|
| <= |
| & |
|
|
| < |
| - |
| / |
| and or xor |
|
|
| > |
|
|
| >= |
| abs not |
| ** |
|
|
| mod rem |
|
|
| Parameter passing modes C++ allows three parameter passing modes, by value, by pointer and by |
| reference (the default mode for Ada). |
|
|
| void func(int by_value, int* by_pointer, int& by_reference); |
|
|
| Ada provides two optional keywords to specify how parameters are passed, in and out. These are |
| used like this: |
|
|
| Integer); |
| procedure proc(Parameter : in |
| procedure proc(Parameter : |
| out Integer); |
| procedure proc(Parameter : in out Integer); |
| Integer); |
| procedure proc(Parameter : |
|
|
| If these keywords are used then the compiler can protect you even more, so if you have an out |
| parameter it will warn you if you use it before it has been set, also it will warn you if you assign to an |
| in parameter. |
|
|
| Note that you cannot mark parameters with out in functions as functions are used to return values, |
| such side affects are disallowed. |
|
|
| Default parameters {6.4.1} Ada (and C++) allow you to declare default values for parameters, this |
| means that when you call the function you can leave such a parameter off the call as the compiler |
| knows what value to use. |
|
|
| procedure Create |
|
|
| (File : in out File_Type; |
|
|
| Mode : in |
| Name : in |
| Form : in |
|
|
| File_Mode := Inout_File; |
| String := ""; |
| String := ""); |
|
|
| This example is to be found in each of the Ada file based IO packages, it opens a file, given the |
| file ’handle’ the mode, name of the file and a system independant ’form’ for the file. You can see |
| that the simplest invokation of Create is Create(File_Handle); which simply provides the |
| handle and all other parameters are defaulted (In the Ada library a file name of "" implies opening |
| a temporary file). Now suppose that we wish to provide the name of the file also, we would have |
| to write Create(File_Handle, Inout_File, "text.file"); wouldn’t we? The Ada |
| answer is no. By using designators as has been demonstrated above we could use the form: |
|
|
| 32 |
|
|
| 1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| Create(File => File_Handle, |
|
|
| Name => "text.file"); |
|
|
| and we can leave the mode to pick up its default. This skipping of parameters is a uniquely Ada |
| feature. |
|
|
| Nested procedures Simple, you can define any number of procedures within the definition of an- |
| other as long as they appear before the begin. |
|
|
| procedure Sort(Sort_This : in out An_Array) is |
|
|
| procedure Swap(Item_1, Item_2 : in out Array_Type) is |
| begin |
| end Swap; |
|
|
| begin |
| end Sort; |
|
|
| Notes: you can get in a mess with both C++ and Ada when mixing overloading and defaults. For |
| example: |
|
|
| procedure increment(A_Value : A_Type); |
| procedure increment |
|
|
| (A_Value : in out A_Type; |
|
|
| By |
|
|
| : in |
|
|
| Integer := 1); |
|
|
| If we call increment with one parameter which of the two above is called? Now the compiler will |
| show such things up, but it does mean you have to think carefully and make sure you use defaults |
| carefully. |
|
|
| 1.3 Ada Safety. |
|
|
| Ada is probably best known for its role in safetly critical systems. Ada is probably best known for its |
| role in safety critical systems. Boeing standardized on Ada as the language for the new 777, and I can |
| assure you such a decision is not taken lightly. |
|
|
| Ada is also commonly assumed to be a military language, with the US Department of Defense its |
| prime advocate, this is not the case, a number of commercial and government developments have |
| now been implemented in Ada. Ada is an excellent choice if you wish to spend your development |
| time solving your customers problems, not hunting bugs in C/C++ which an Ada compiler would not |
| have allowed. |
|
|
| 1.3.1 Static provability. |
|
|
| Ada-83 did not provide Object Oriented features, and did not even provide procedural types as such |
| constructs meant that you could only follow the path of the code at runtime. Ada-83 was statically |
| provable, you could follow the route the code would take given certain inputs from the source code |
|
|
| 33 |
|
|
| 1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| alone. This has been a great benefit and has provided Ada programmers with a great deal of confidence |
| in the code they wrote. |
|
|
| Ada-95 has introduced these new features, Object Oriented programming through tagged types and |
| procedural types which make it more difficult to statically prove an Ada-95 program, but the language |
| designers decided that such features merited their inclusion in the language to further another goal, |
| that of high reuse. |
|
|
| 1.3.2 Predefined exceptions and pragmas. |
|
|
| A number of exceptions can be raised by the standard library and/or the runtime environment. You |
| may expect to come accross at least one while you are learning Ada (and more once you know it ;-). |
|
|
| Constraint_Error |
|
|
| This exception is raised when a constraint is exceeded, such constraints include |
|
|
| • Numeric under/overflow. |
|
|
| • Range bounds exceeded. |
|
|
| • Reference to invalid record component. |
|
|
| • Dereference of null access type. |
|
|
| Program_Error |
|
|
| This is raised by the run-time to mark an erroneous program event, such as calling a procedure |
| before package initialisation, or bad instantiation of a generic package. |
|
|
| Storage_Error |
|
|
| This exception is raised when a call to new could not be satisfied due to lack of memory. |
|
|
| Tasking_Error |
|
|
| This is raised when problems occur during tasking rendezvous (see section 7.2 on page 58). |
|
|
| This is not a list of the predefined pragmas {L} what I have provided is the set of options to the pragma |
| Supress which can be used to stop certain run-time checks taking place. The pragma works from |
| that point to the end of the innermost enclosing scope, or the end of the scope of the named object |
| (see below). |
|
|
| Access_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on dereference of a null access value. |
|
|
| Accessibility_Check |
|
|
| Raises Program_Error on access to inaccessible object or subprogram. |
|
|
| Discriminant_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on access to incorrect component in a discriminant record. |
|
|
| Division_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on divide by zero. |
|
|
| 34 |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| 1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
| Elaboration_Check |
|
|
| Raises Program_Error on unelaborated package or subprogram body. |
|
|
| Index_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on out of range array index. |
|
|
| Length_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on array length violation. |
|
|
| Overflow_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on overflow from numeric operation. |
|
|
| Range_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error on out of range scalar value. |
|
|
| Storage_Check |
|
|
| Raises Storage_Error if not enough storage to satisfy a new call. |
|
|
| Tag_Check |
|
|
| Raises Constraint_Error if object has an invalid tag for operation. |
|
|
| pragma Suppress(Access_Check); |
| pragma Suppress(Access_Check, On => My_Type_Ptr); |
|
|
| The first use of the pragma above turns off checking for null access values throughout the code (for |
| the lifetime of the suppress), whereas the second only suppresses the check for the named data item. |
|
|
| The point of this section is that by default all of these checks are enabled, and so any such errors will |
| be trapped. |
|
|
| 1.3.3 Unchecked programming. |
|
|
| You can subvert some of Adas type consistency by the use of unchecked programming. This is |
| basically a set of procedures which do unsafe operations. These are: |
|
|
| Unchecked_Conversion |
|
|
| This generic function is defined as: |
|
|
| generic |
| type Source (<>) is limited private; |
| type Target (<>) is limited private; |
| function Ada.Unchecked_Conversion (Source_Object : Source) |
|
|
| return Target; |
|
|
| and should be instantiated like the example below (taken from one of the Ada-95 standard |
| library packages Ada.Interfaces.C). |
|
|
| function Character_To_char is new |
|
|
| Unchecked_Conversion (Character, char); |
|
|
| 35 |
|
|
| 1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
| 1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
| and can then be used to convert and Ada character to a C char, thus |
|
|
| A_Char : Interfaces.C.char := Character_To_char(’a’); |
|
|
| Unchecked_Deallocation |
|
|
| This generic function is defined as: |
|
|
| generic |
| type Object (<>) is limited private; |
| type Name is access Object; |
| procedure Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation (X : in out Name); |
|
|
| this function, instantiated with two parameters, only requires one for operation, |
|
|
| type My_Type is new Integer; |
| type My_Ptr |
| procedure Free is new Unchecked_Deallocation (My_Type, My_Ptr); |
| Thing : My_Ptr := new My_Type; |
| Free(Thing); |
|
|
| is access My_Type; |
|
|
| 36 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| Ada Packages. {7} |
|
|
| Ada has one feature which many C/C++ programmers like to think they have an equivalent too - the |
| package - they do not. |
|
|
| It is worth first looking at the role of header files in C/C++. Header files are simply program text |
| which by virtue of the preprocessor are inserted into the compilers input stream. The #include |
| directive knows nothing about what it is including and can lead to all sorts of problems, such as |
| people who #include "thing.c". This sharing of code by the preprocessor lead to the #ifdef |
| construct as you would have different interfaces for different people. The other problem is that C/C++ |
| compilations can sometime take forever because a included b included c . . . or the near fatal a |
| included a included a . . . |
|
|
| Stroustrup has tried ref [9] (in vain, as far as I can see) to convince C++ programmers to remove |
| dependance on the preprocessor but all the drawbacks are still there. |
|
|
| Any Ada package on the other hand consists of two parts, the specification (header) and body (code). |
| The specification however is a completely stand alone entity which can be compiled on its own and |
| so must include specifications from other packages to do so. An Ada package body at compile time |
| must refer to its package specification to ensure legal declarations, but in many Ada environments it |
| would look up a compiled version of the specification. |
|
|
| The specification contains an explicit list of the visible components of a package and so there can be |
| no internal knowledge exploited as is often the case in C code, ie module a contains a functions aa() |
| but does not export it through a header file, module b knows how a is coded and so uses the extern |
| keyword to declare knowledge of it, and use it. C/C++ programmers therefore have to mark private |
| functions and data as static. |
|
|
| 2.1 What a package looks like |
|
|
| Below is the skeleton of a package, spec and body. |
|
|
| --file example.ads, the package specification. |
| package example is |
| : |
| : |
| end example; |
|
|
| 37 |
|
|
| 2.2. INCLUDE A PACKAGE IN ANOTHER |
|
|
| 2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
| --file example.adb, the package body. |
| package body example is |
| : |
| : |
| end example; |
|
|
| 2.2 Include a package in another |
|
|
| Whereas a C file includes a header by simply inserting the text of the header into the current com- |
| pilation stream with #include "example.h", the Ada package specification has a two stage |
| process. |
|
|
| Working with the example package above let us assume that we need to include another package, say |
| My_Specs into this package so that it may be used. Firstly where do you insert it? Like C, package |
| specifications can be inserted into either a specification or body depending on who is the client. Like |
| a C header/code relationship any package included in the specification of package A is visible to the |
| body of A, but not to clients of A. Each package is a seperate entity. |
|
|
| -- Specification for package example |
| with Project_Specs; |
| package example is |
|
|
| type My_Type is new Project_Spec.Their_Type; |
|
|
| end example; |
|
|
| -- Body for package example |
| with My_Specs; |
| package body example is |
|
|
| type New_Type_1 is new My_Specs.Type_1; |
| type New_Type_2 is new Project_Specs.Type_1; |
|
|
| end example; |
|
|
| You can see here the basic visibility rules, the specification has to include Project_Specs so that |
| it can declare My_Type. The body automatically inherits any packages included in its spec, so that |
| you can see that although the body does not include Project_Specs that package is used in the |
| declaration of New_Type_1. The body also includes another package My_Specs to declare the |
| new type New_Type_2, the specification is unaware of this include and so cannot use My_Specs |
| to declare new types. In a similar way an ordinary client of the package example cannot use the |
| inclusion of Project_Specs, they would have to include it themselves. |
|
|
| To use an item, say a the type Type_1 you must name it My_Specs.Type_1, in effect you have |
| included the package name, not its contents. To get the same effect as the C #include you must |
| also add another statement to make: |
|
|
| with My_Specs; use My_Specs |
| package body example is |
| : |
| : |
| end example; |
|
|
| 38 |
|
|
| 2.3. PACKAGE DATA HIDING {7.3} |
|
|
| 2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
| It is usual in Ada to put the with and the use on the same line, for clarity. There is much more to be |
| said about Ada packages, but that should be enough to start with. There is a special form of the use |
| statement which can simply include an element (types only) from a package, consider: |
|
|
| use type Ada.Calendar.Time; |
|
|
| 2.3 Package data hiding {7.3} |
|
|
| Data encapulation requires, for any level of safe reuse, a level of hiding. That is to say we need to |
| defer the declaration of some data to a future point so that any client cannot depend on the structure |
| of the data and allows the provider the ability to change that structure if the need arises. |
|
|
| In C this is done by presenting the ’private type’ as a void* which means that you cannot know |
| anything about it, but implies that no one can do any form of type checking on it. In C++ we can |
| forward declare classes and so provide an anonymous class type. |
|
|
| /* C code */ |
| typedef void* list; |
| list create(void); |
| // C++ |
| class Our_List { |
| public: |
|
|
| Our_List(void); |
|
|
| private: |
|
|
| class List_Rep; |
| List_Rep* Representation; |
|
|
| }; |
|
|
| You can see that as a C++ programmer you have the advantage that when writing the implementa- |
| tion of Our_List and its internal representation List_Rep you have all the advantages of type |
| checking, but the client still knows absolutely nothing about how the list is structured. |
|
|
| In Ada this concept is formalised into the ’private part’ of a package. This private part is used to |
| define items which are forward declared as private. |
|
|
| package Our_List is |
| type List_Rep is private; |
| function Create return List_Rep; |
| private |
|
|
| type List_Rep is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| -- some data |
|
|
| end record; |
| end Our_List; |
|
|
| As you can see the way the Ada private part is usually used the representation of List_Rep is |
| exposed, but because it is a private type the only operations that the client may use are = and /=, all |
| other operations must be provided by functions and procedures in the package. |
|
|
| 39 |
|
|
| 2.4. HIERARCHICAL PACKAGES. |
|
|
| 2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
| Note: we can even restrict use of = and /= by declaring the type as limited private when you |
| wish to have no predefined operators available. |
|
|
| You may not in the public part of the package specification declare variables of the private type as the |
| representation is not yet known, we can declare constants of the type, but you must declare them in |
| both places, forward reference them in the public part with no value, and then again in the private part |
| to provide a value: |
|
|
| package Example is |
|
|
| type A is private; |
| B : constant A; |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| type A is new Integer; |
| B : constant A := 0; |
|
|
| end Example; |
|
|
| To get exactly the same result as the C++ code above then you must go one step further, you must not |
| expose the representation of List_Rep, and so you might use: |
|
|
| package Our_List is |
|
|
| type List_Access is limited private; |
| function Create return List_Access; |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| type List_Rep; -- opaque type |
| type List_Access is access List_Rep; |
|
|
| end Our_List; |
|
|
| We now pass back to the client an access type, which points to a ’deferred incomplete type’ whose |
| representation is only required to be exposed in the package body. |
|
|
| 2.4 Hierarchical packages. |
|
|
| Ada allows the nesting of packages within each other, this can be useful for a number of reasons. |
| With Ada-83 this was possible by nesting package specs and bodies physically, thus: |
|
|
| package Outer is |
|
|
| package Inner_1 is |
| end Inner_1; |
| package Inner_2 is |
| end Inner_2; |
|
|
| private |
| end Outer; |
|
|
| Ada-95 has added to this the possibility to define child packages outside the physical scope of a |
| package, thus: |
|
|
| 40 |
|
|
| 2.5. RENAMING IDENTIFIERS. |
|
|
| 2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
| package Outer is |
| package Inner_1 is |
| end Inner_1; |
| end Outer; |
| package Outer.Inner_2 is |
| end Outer.Inner_2; |
|
|
| As you can see Inner_2 is still a child of outer but can be created at some later date, by a different |
| team. |
|
|
| 2.5 Renaming identifiers. |
|
|
| This is not a package specific topic, and it is only introduced here as the using of packages is the most |
| common place to find a renames clause. |
|
|
| Consider: |
|
|
| with Outer; |
| with Outer.Inner_1; |
| package New_Package is |
|
|
| OI_1 renames Outer.Inner_1; |
| type New_type is new OI_1.A_Type; |
|
|
| end New_Package; |
|
|
| The use of OI_1 not only saves us a lot of typing, but if outer were the package Sorting_Algorithms, |
| and Inner_1 was Insertion_Sort, then we could have |
| Sort renames Sorting_Algorithms.Insertion_Sort |
| and then at some later date if you decide that a quick sort is more approriate then you simply change |
| the renames clause, and the rest of the package spec stays exactly the same. |
|
|
| Similarly if you want to include 2 functions from two different package with the same name then, |
| rather than relying on overloading, or to clarify your code text you could: |
|
|
| with Package1; |
| function Function1 return Integer renames Package1.Function; |
| with Package2; |
| function Function2 return Integer renames Package2.Function; |
|
|
| Another example of a renames clause is where you are using some complex structure and you want to |
| in effect use a synonym for it during some processing. In the example below we have a device handler |
| structure which contains some procedure types which we need to execute in turn. The first example |
| contains a lot of text which we don’t really care about, so the second removes most of it, thus leaving |
| bare the real work we are attempting to do. |
|
|
| for device in Device_Map loop |
|
|
| Device_Map(device).Device_Handler.Request_Device; |
| Device_Map(device).Device_Handler. |
|
|
| Process_Function(Process_This_Request); |
|
|
| 41 |
|
|
| 2.5. RENAMING IDENTIFIERS. |
|
|
| 2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
| Device_Map(device).Device_Handler.Relinquish_Device; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| for device in Device_Map loop |
|
|
| declare |
|
|
| Device_Handler : Device_Type renames |
| Device_Map(device).Device_Handler; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Device_Handler.Request_Device; |
| Device_Handler.Process_Function(Process_This_Request); |
| Device_Handler.Relinquish_Device; |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| 42 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| Ada-95 Object Oriented Programming. |
|
|
| C++ extends C with the concept of a class. A class is an extension of the existing struct construct |
| which we have reviewed in section 1.1.7 on page 15. The difference with a class is that a class not |
| only contains data (member attributes) but code as well (member functions). A class might look like: |
|
|
| class A_Device { |
| public: |
|
|
| A_Device(char*, int, int); |
| char* Name(void); |
| int |
| int |
|
|
| Major(void); |
| Minor(void); |
|
|
| protected: |
|
|
| char* name; |
| int |
| int |
|
|
| major; |
| minor; |
|
|
| }; |
|
|
| This defines a class called A_Device, which encapsulates a Unix-like /dev entry. Such an entry has a |
| name and a major and minor number, the actual data items are protected so a client cannot alter them, |
| but the client can see them by calling the public interface functions. |
|
|
| The code above also introduces a constructor, a function with the same name as the class which is |
| called whenever the class is created. In C++ these may be overloaded and are called either by the |
| new operator, or in local variable declarations as below. |
|
|
| A_Device lp1("lp1", 10, 1); |
| A_Device* lp1; |
|
|
| lp1 = new A_Device("lp1", 10, 1); |
|
|
| Creates a new device object called lp1 and sets up the name and major/minor numbers. |
|
|
| Ada has also extended its equivalent of a struct, the record but does not directly attach the member |
| functions to it. First the Ada equivalent of the above class is |
|
|
| package Devices is |
|
|
| type Device is tagged private; |
|
|
| 43 |
|
|
| 3.1. THE TAGGED TYPE. |
|
|
| 3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
| type Device_Type is access Device; |
| function Create(Name |
|
|
| : String; |
|
|
| Major : Integer; |
| Minor : Integer) |
|
|
| function Name(this : Device_Type) |
| function Major(this : Device_Type) return Integer; |
| function Minor(this : Device_Type) return Integer; |
|
|
| return Device_Type; |
| return String; |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| type Device is tagged |
|
|
| record |
| Name |
| Major : Integer; |
| Minor : Integer; |
|
|
| : String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| end Devices; |
|
|
| and the equivalent declaration of an object would be: |
|
|
| lp1 : Devices.Device_Type := Devices.Create("lp1", 10, 1); |
|
|
| 3.1 The tagged type. |
|
|
| The addition of the keyword tagged to the definition of the type Device makes it a class in C++ |
| terms. The tagged type is simply an extension of the Ada-83 record type but (in the same way C++’s |
| class is an extension of C’s struct) which includes a ’tag’ which can identify not only its own |
| type but its place in the type hierarchy. |
|
|
| The tag can be accessed by the attribute ’Tag but should only be used for comparison, ie |
|
|
| dev1, dev2 : Device; |
| if dev1’Tag = dev2’Tag then |
|
|
| this can identify the isa relationship between two objects. |
|
|
| Another important attribute ’Class exists which is used in type declarations to denote the class-wide |
| type, the inheritence tree rooted at that type, ie |
|
|
| type Device_Class is Device’Class; |
| -- or more normally |
| type Device_Class is access Device’Class; |
|
|
| The second type denotes a pointer to objects of type Device and any objects whos type has been |
| inherited from Device. |
|
|
| 3.2 Class member attributes. |
|
|
| Member attributes in C++ directly map onto data members of the tagged type. So the char* name |
| directly maps into Name : String. |
|
|
| 44 |
|
|
| 3.3. CLASS MEMBER FUNCTIONS. |
|
|
| 3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
| 3.3 Class member functions. |
|
|
| Non-virtual, non-const, non-static member functions map onto subprograms, within the same package |
| as the tagged type, whos first parameter is of that tagged type or an access to the tagged type, or who |
| returns such a type. |
|
|
| 3.4 Virtual member functions. |
|
|
| Virtual member functions map onto subprograms, within the same package as the tagged type, whos |
| first parameter is of the class-wide type, or an access to the class-wide type, or who returns such a |
| type. |
|
|
| A pure virtual function maps onto a virtual member function with the keywords is abstract |
| before the semicolon. When any pure virtual member functions exist the tagged type they refer to |
| must also be identified as abstract. Also, if an abstract tagged type has been introduced which has no |
| data, then the following shorthand can be used: |
|
|
| type Root_Type is abstract tagged null record; |
|
|
| 3.5 Static members. |
|
|
| Static members map onto subprograms within the same package as the tagged type. These are no |
| different from normal Ada-83 subprograms, it is up to the programmer when applying coding rules |
| to identify only member functions or static functions in a package which includes a tagged type. |
|
|
| 3.6 Constructors/Destructors for Ada. |
|
|
| As you can see from the example above there is no constructors and destructors in Ada. In the example |
| above we have synthesised this with the Create function which creates a new object and returns it. |
| If you intend to use this method then the most important thing to remember is to use the same name |
| throughout, Create Copy Destroy etc are all useful conventions. |
|
|
| Ada does provide a library package Ada.Finalization which can provide constructor/destructor |
| like facilities for tagged types. |
|
|
| Note: See [4]. |
|
|
| 3.7 |
|
|
| Inheritance, single and multiple. |
|
|
| The most common attribute sited as the mark of a true object oriented language is support for inheri- |
| tance. Ada-95 adds this as tagged type extension. |
|
|
| For example, let us now inherit the device type above to make a tape device, firstly in C++ |
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
| 3.8. PUBLIC/PROTECTED/PRIVATE. |
|
|
| 3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
| class A_Tape : public A_Device { |
| public: |
|
|
| A_Tape(char*, int, int); |
| int Block_Size(void); |
|
|
| protected: |
|
|
| int block_size; |
|
|
| }; |
|
|
| Now let us look at the example in Ada. |
|
|
| package Device.Tapes is |
|
|
| type Tape is new device with private; |
| type Tape_Type is access Tape; |
| function Create(Name : String; |
|
|
| Major : Integer; |
| Minor : Integer) return Tape_Type; |
|
|
| function Block_Size(this : Tape_Type) return Integer; |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| type Tape is new Device with |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Block_Size : Integer; |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| end Device.Tapes; |
|
|
| Ada does not directly support multiple inheritance, ref [5] has an example of how to synthesise mulit- |
| ple inheritance. |
|
|
| 3.8 public/protected/private. |
|
|
| In the example at the top of this section we provided the Device comparison. |
| In this example |
| the C++ class provided a public interface and a protected one, the Ada equivalent then provided an |
| interface in the public part and the tagged type declaration in the private part. Because of the rules for |
| child packages (see 2.4 on page 40) a child of the Devices package can see the private part and so |
| can use the definition of the Device tagged type. |
|
|
| Top mimic C++ private interfaces you can choose to use the method above, which in effect makes |
| them protected, or you can make them really private by using opaque types (see 2.3 on page 39). |
|
|
| 3.9 A more complete example. |
|
|
| class base_device { |
| public: |
|
|
| major(void) const; |
| minor(void) const; |
|
|
| char* name(void) const; |
| int |
| int |
| enum { block, character, special } io_type; |
| io_type type(void) const; |
|
|
| 46 |
|
|
| 3.9. A MORE COMPLETE EXAMPLE. |
|
|
| 3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
| char read(void) = 0; |
| void write(char) = 0; |
| static char* type_name(void); |
|
|
| protected: |
|
|
| _major; |
| _minor; |
|
|
| char* _name; |
| int |
| int |
| static const io_type _type; |
| base_device(void); |
|
|
| private: |
|
|
| int _device_count; |
|
|
| }; |
|
|
| The class above shows off a number of C++ features, |
|
|
| • Some const member functions. |
|
|
| • Some pure virtual member functions. |
|
|
| • A Static member function. |
|
|
| • Some protected member attributes. |
|
|
| • A Static const member attribute. |
|
|
| • A protected constructor. |
|
|
| • A private member attribute. |
|
|
| All of these, including the reasons why they might be used should be familiar to you, below is an |
| equivalent specification in Ada. |
|
|
| package Devices is |
|
|
| is access Device; |
|
|
| type Device is abstract tagged limited private; |
| type Device_Type |
| type Device_Class is access Device’Class; |
| type IO_Type is (Block, Char, Special); |
| : in Device_Type) return String; |
| function Name(this |
| : in Device_Type) return Integer; |
| function Major(this |
| function Minor(this |
| : in Device_Type) return Integer; |
| function IOType(this : in Device_Type) return IO_Type; |
| function Read(this |
| procedure Write(this : Device_Class; Output : Character) is abstract; |
| function Type_Name return String; |
|
|
| return Character is abstract; |
|
|
| : Device_Class) |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| type Device_Count; |
| type Device_Private is access Device_Count; |
| type Device is abstract tagged limited |
| record |
| Name |
|
|
| : String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
| 47 |
|
|
| 3.9. A MORE COMPLETE EXAMPLE. |
|
|
| 3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
| Major : Integer; |
| Minor : Integer; |
| Count : Device_Private; |
|
|
| end record; |
| Const_IO_Type |
| : constant IO_Type := special; |
| Const_Type_Name : constant String := "Device"; |
|
|
| end Devices; |
|
|
| 48 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| Generics |
|
|
| One of Ada’s strongest claims is the ability to code for reuse. C++ also claims reuse as one of its |
| goals through Object Oriented Programming. Ada-83 allowed you to manage the data encapsula- |
| tion and layering through the package mechanism and Ada-95 does include proper facilities for OO |
| Programming. Where Ada led however, and C++ is following is the area of generic, or template |
| programming. |
|
|
| 4.1 A generic procedure {12.6} |
|
|
| For example. A sort algorithm is well understood, and we may like to code a sort for an array of int’s |
| in C, we would have a function like: |
|
|
| void sort(int *array, int num_elements); |
|
|
| however when you come to sort an array of structures you either have to rewrite the function, or you |
| end up with a generic sort function which looks like this: |
|
|
| void sort(void *array, int element_size, int element_count, |
| int (*compare)(void* el1, void *el2)); |
|
|
| This takes a bland address for the start of the array user supplied parameters for the size of each |
| element and the number of elements and a function which compares two elements. C does not have |
| strong typing, but you have just stripped away any help the compiler might be able to give you by |
| using void*. |
|
|
| Now let us consider an Ada generic version of the sort function: |
|
|
| generic |
|
|
| type index_type is (<>); |
| type element_type is private; |
| type element_array is array (index_type range <>) of element_type; |
| with function "<" (el1, el2 : element_type) return Boolean; |
|
|
| procedure Sort(the_array : in out element_array); |
|
|
| 49 |
|
|
| 4.2. GENERIC PACKAGES {12.7} |
|
|
| 4. GENERICS |
|
|
| This shows us quite a few features of Ada generics and is a nice place to start, for example note that |
| we have specified a lot of detail about the thing we are going to sort, it is an array, for which we don’t |
| know the bounds so it is specified as range <>. We also can’t expect that the range is an integer |
| range and so we must also make the range type a parameter, index_type. Then we come onto the |
| element type, this is simply specified as private, so all we know is that we can test equality and assign |
| one to another. Now that we have specified exactly what it is we are going to sort we must ask for a |
| function to compare two elements, similar to C we must ask the user to supply a function, however |
| in this case we can ask for an operator function and notice that we use the keyword with before the |
| function. |
|
|
| I think that you should be able to see the difference between the Ada code and C code as far as |
| readability (and therefore maintainability) are concerned and why, therefore, Ada promotes the reuse |
| philosophy. |
|
|
| Now let’s use our generic to sort some of MyTypes. |
|
|
| MyArray : array (Integer 0 .. 100) of MyType; |
| function LessThan(el1, el2 : MyType) return Boolean; |
| procedure SortMyType is new Sort(Integer, MyType, MyArray, LessThan); |
| SortMyType(MyArray); |
|
|
| The first two lines simply declare the array we are going to sort and a little function which we use to |
| compare two elements (note: no self respecting Ada programmer would define a function LessThan |
| when they can use "<", this is simply for this example). We then go on to instantiate the generic |
| procedure and declare that we have an array called MyArray of type MyType using an Integer |
| range and we have a function to compare two elements. Now that the compiler has instantiated the |
| generic we can simply call it using the new name. |
|
|
| Note: The Ada compiler instantiates the generic and will ensure type safety throughout. |
|
|
| 4.2 Generic packages {12.7} |
|
|
| Ada packages and generics where designed to go together, you will even find generic packages in the |
| Ada standard library. For example: |
|
|
| generic |
| type Element_Type is private; |
| package Ada.Direct_IO is |
|
|
| Is the standard method for writing out binary data structures, and so one could write out to a file: |
|
|
| type My_Struct is |
| record |
| ... |
| end record; |
| package My_Struct_IO is new Ada.Direct_IO(My_Struct); |
| use My_Struct_IO; |
| Item : My_Struct; |
| File : My_Struct_IO; |
| ... |
| My_Struct_IO.Write(File, Item); |
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
| 4.3. GENERIC TYPES AND OTHER PARAMETERS {12.4} |
|
|
| 4. GENERICS |
|
|
| Note: see section 5.2 on page 53 for a more detailed study of these packages and how they are used. |
|
|
| 4.3 Generic types and other parameters {12.4} |
|
|
| The types you may specify for a generic subprogram or package are as follows: |
|
|
| type X is private |
|
|
| We can know nothing about the type, except that we may test for equality and we may assign one to |
| another. If we add in the keyword limited then even these abilities are unavailable. |
|
|
| type X(<>) is private |
|
|
| Added for Ada-95, this is similar to the parameter above except that we can define data items in the |
| body of our package of type X, this may be illegal if the type passed is unconstrained, ie String. |
| Ada-95 does not allow the instantiation of generics with unconstrained types, unless you use this |
| syntax in which case you cannot declare data items of this type. |
|
|
| type X is (<>) |
|
|
| The type is a discrete type, Integer, Character, Enumeration etc. |
|
|
| type X is range <> |
|
|
| The type indicates a range, ie 0 .. |
|
|
| 100. |
|
|
| type X is mod <> |
|
|
| The type is a modulus type of unknown size (Added for Ada-95). |
|
|
| type X is digits <> |
|
|
| The type is a floating point type. |
|
|
| type X is delta <> |
|
|
| The type is a fixed point type. |
|
|
| type X is tagged private |
|
|
| The type is a tagged type, ie an Ada-95 extensible record. |
|
|
| There is one final parameter which may be passed to a generic package, another generic package |
| (Added for Ada-95). |
|
|
| with Generic_Tree; |
| generic |
|
|
| with package A_Tree is new Generic_Tree(<>); |
|
|
| package Tree_Walker is |
|
|
| -- some code. |
| end Tree_Walker; |
|
|
| This says that we have some package called Generic_Tree which is a generic package implementing |
| a tree of generic items. We want to be able to walk any such tree and so we say that we have a new |
| generic package which takes a parameter which must be an instantiated package. ie |
|
|
| package AST is new Generic_Tree(Syntax_Element); |
| package AST_Print is new Tree_Walker(AST); |
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| IO |
|
|
| A common area for confusion is the Ada IO model, this has been shaped by the nature of the language |
| itself and specifically the strong typing which has a direct impact on the model used to construct the |
| IO libraries. If you stop and think about it briefly it is quite clear that with the typing rules we have |
| introduced above you cannot write a function like the C write() which takes any old thing and puts |
| it out to a file, how can you write a function which will take any parameter, even types which will be |
| introduced after it has been completed. Ada-83 took a two pronged approach to IO, with the package |
| Text_IO for simple, textual input output, and the packages Sequential_IO and Direct_IO |
| which are generic packages for binary output of structured data. |
|
|
| The most common problem for C and C++ programmers is the lack of the printf family of IO func- |
| tions. There is a good reason for their absence in Ada, the use in C of variable arguments, the ’...’ at |
| the end of the printf function spec. Ada cannot support such a construct as the type of each parameter |
| is unknown. |
|
|
| 5.1 Ada.Text_IO |
|
|
| The common way to do console-like IO, similar to C’s printf(), puts() and putchar() is to use the |
| package Ada.Text_IO. This provides a set of overloaded functions called Put and Get to read |
| and write to the screen or to simple text files. There are also functions to open and close such files, |
| check end of file conditions and to do line and page management. |
|
|
| A simple program below uses Text_IO to print a message to the screen, including numerics! These |
| are achieved by using the types attribute ’Image which gives back a String representation of a value. |
|
|
| with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO; |
| procedure Test_IO is |
| begin |
|
|
| Put_Line("Test Starts Here >"); |
| Put_Line("Integer is " & Integer’Image(2)); |
| Put_Line("Float is " & Float’Image(2.0)); |
| Put_Line("Test Ends Here"); |
|
|
| end Test_IO; |
|
|
| It is also possible to use one of the generic child packages of Ada.Text_IO such as |
| Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO which can be instantiated with a particular type to provide type safe |
| textual IO. |
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
| 5.2. ADA.SEQUENTIAL_IO AND ADA.DIRECT_IO |
|
|
| 5. IO |
|
|
| with Ada.Text_IO; |
| type My_Integer is new Integer; |
| package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO(My_Integer); |
| use My_Integer_IO; |
|
|
| 5.2 Ada.Sequential_IO and Ada.Direct_IO |
|
|
| These two generic packages provide IO facilities for files which contain identical records. They can |
| be instantiated in a similar way to the generic text IO packages above, so for example: |
|
|
| with Ada.Direct_IO; |
| package A_Database is |
| type File_Header is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Magic_Number |
| : Special_Stamp; |
| Number_Of_Records : Record_Number; |
| : Record_Number; |
| First_Deleted |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| type Row is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Key : String(1 .. 80); |
| Data : String(1 .. 255); |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| package Header_IO is new Direct_IO (File_Header); use Header_IO; |
| package Row_IO |
| use Record_IO; |
| end A_Database; |
|
|
| is new Direct_IO (Row); |
|
|
| Now that we have some instantiated packages we can read and write records and headers to and from |
| a file. However we want each database file to consist of a header followed by a number of rows, so |
| we try the following |
|
|
| declare |
| Handle |
| A_Header : File_Header; |
| : Row; |
| A_Row |
|
|
| : Header_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Header_IO.Open(File => Handle, Name => "Test"); |
| Header_IO.Write(Handle, A_Header); |
| Row_IO.Write(Handle, A_Row); |
| Header_IO.Close(Handle); |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| The obvious error is that Handle is defined as a type exported from the Header_IO package and so |
| cannot be passed to the procedure Write from the package Row_IO. This strong typing means that |
| both Sequential_IO and Direct_IO are designed only to work on files containg all elements |
| of the same type. |
|
|
| When designing a package, if you want to avoid this sort of problem (the designers of these packages |
| did intend this restriction) then embed the generic part within an enclosing package, thus |
|
|
| 53 |
|
|
| 5.2. ADA.SEQUENTIAL_IO AND ADA.DIRECT_IO |
|
|
| 5. IO |
|
|
| package generic_IO is |
|
|
| type File_Type is limited private; |
| procedure Create(File : File_Type .... |
| procedure Close ..... |
| generic |
|
|
| Element_Type is private; |
|
|
| package Read_Write is |
|
|
| procedure Read(File : File_Type; |
|
|
| Element : Element_Type ... |
|
|
| procedure Write ..... |
|
|
| end Read_Write; |
|
|
| end generic_IO; |
|
|
| Which would make our database package look something like |
|
|
| with generic_IO; |
| package A_Database is |
| type File_Header is |
|
|
| record |
|
|
| Magic_Number |
| : Special_Stamp; |
| Number_Of_Records : Record_Number; |
| : Record_Number; |
| First_Deleted |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| type Row is |
|
|
| record |
| Key |
| Data : String(1 .. 255); |
|
|
| : String(1 .. 80); |
|
|
| end record; |
|
|
| package Header_IO is new generic_IO.Read_Write (File_Header); |
| use Header_IO; |
| package Row_IO |
| use Record_IO; |
| end A_Database; |
| : |
| : |
| declare |
|
|
| is new generic_IO.Read_Write (Row); |
|
|
| : generic_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
| Handle |
| A_Header : File_Header; |
| : Row; |
| A_Row |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| generic_IO.Open(File => Handle, Name => "Test"); |
| Header_IO.Write(Handle, A_Header); |
| Row_IO.Write(Handle, A_Row); |
| generic_IO.Close(Handle); |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| 54 |
|
|
| 5.3. STREAMS |
|
|
| 5.3 Streams |
|
|
| 5. IO |
|
|
| This is a new Ada-95 feature which I will add once I have a copy of GNAT which supports the feature. |
| I like to have examples which I have compiled/tried. |
|
|
| 55 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| Interfacing to other languages |
|
|
| Ada-95 has a specified set of packages under the top level package Interfaces which define |
| functions to allow you to convert data types between the Ada program and the external language |
| routines. |
|
|
| The full set of packages defined for interfaces are show below. |
|
|
| Interfaces |
|
|
| C |
|
|
| Pointers |
| Strings |
|
|
| COBOL |
|
|
| CPP |
|
|
| Fortran |
|
|
| 56 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| Concurrency |
|
|
| To some this section does not fit in the remit of a C++ programmers guide to Ada, however most |
| modern operating systems contain constructs known either as lightweight processes or as threads. |
| These allow programmers to have multiple threads of execution within the same address space. Many |
| of you will be familiar with this concept and so I will use it as a basis for explaining tasks below, you |
| may skip the next paragraph. |
|
|
| Unlike C/C++ Ada defines a concurrency model as part of the language itself. Some languages |
| (Modula-3) provide a concurrency model through the use of standard library packages, and of course |
| some operating systems provide libraries to provide concurrency. In Ada there are two base com- |
| ponents, the task which encapsulates a concurrent process and the protected type which is a data |
| structure which provides guarded access to its data. |
|
|
| 7.1 Tasks |
|
|
| 7.1.1 Tasks as threads |
|
|
| For those who have not worked in a multi-threaded environment you might like to consider the ad- |
| vantages. In a non-multi-threaded UNIX (for example) the granularity of concurrency is the process. |
| This process is an atomic entity to communicate with other processes you must use sockets, IPC etc. |
| The only way to start a cooperating process is to initialise some global data and use the fork function |
| to start a process which is a copy of the current process and so inherits these global variables. The |
| problem with this model is that the global variables are now replicated in both processes, a change to |
| one is not reflected in the other. |
|
|
| In a multi-threaded environment multiple concurrent processes are allowed within the same address |
| space, that is they can share global data. Usually there are a set of API calls such as StartThread, |
| StopThread etc which manage these processes. |
|
|
| Note: An Ada program with no tasks is really an Ada process with a single running task, the default |
| code. |
|
|
| 7.1.2 A Simple task |
|
|
| In the example below an Ada task is presented which will act like a thread found in a multi-threaded |
| operating system such as OS/2, Windows-NT or Solaris. |
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| task X is |
| end X; |
|
|
| task body X is |
| begin |
| loop |
|
|
| -- processing. |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end X; |
|
|
| As with packages a task comes in two blocks, the specification and the body. Both of these are shown |
| above, the task specification simply declares the name of the task and nothing more. The body of the |
| task shows that it is a loop processing something. In many cases a task is simply a straight through |
| block of code which is executed in parallel, or it may be, as in this case, modelled as a service loop. |
|
|
| 7.1.3 Task as types |
|
|
| Tasks can be defined as types, this means that you can define a task which can be used by any client. |
| Once defined as a task objects of that type can be created in the usual way. Consider: |
|
|
| task type X is |
| end X; |
| Item : X; |
| Items : array (0 .. 9) of X; |
|
|
| Note: however that tasks are declared as constants, you cannot assign to them and you cannot test for |
| equality. |
|
|
| 7.2 Task synchronization (Rendezvouz) |
|
|
| The advantage of Ada tasking is that the Ada task model provides much more than the multi-threaded |
| operating systems mentioned above. When creating a thread to do some work we must seperately |
| create semaphores and/or other IPC objects to manage the cooperation between threads, and all of |
| this is of course system dependant. |
|
|
| The Ada tasking model defines methods for inter-task cooperation and much more in a system inde- |
| pendant way using constructs known as Rendezvous. |
|
|
| A Rendezvouz is just what it sounds like, a meeting place where two tasks arrange to meet up, if |
| one task reaches it first then it waits for the other to arrive. And in fact a queue is formed for each |
| rendezvous of all tasks waiting (in FIFO order). |
|
|
| 7.2.1 |
|
|
| entry/accept |
|
|
| A task contains a number of elements, data items, procedural code and rendezvous. A rendezvous is |
| represented in the task specification like a procedure call returning no value (though it can have in |
| out parameters). It can take any number of parameters, but rather that the keyword procedure the |
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| keyword entry is used. In the task body however the keyword accept is used, and instead of the |
| procedure syntax of is begin simply do is used. The reason for this is that rendezvous in a task |
| are simply sections of the code in it, they are not seperate elements as procedures are. |
|
|
| Consider the example below, a system of some sort has a cache of elements, it requests an element |
| from the cache, if it is not in the cache then the cache itself reads an element from the master set. If |
| this process of reading from the master fills the cache then it must be reordered. When the process |
| finishes with the item it calls PutBack which updates the cache and if required updates the master. |
|
|
| task type Cached_Items is |
|
|
| entry Request(Item : out Item_Type); |
| entry PutBack(Item : in Item_Type); |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
| Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| -- open the log file. |
| loop |
|
|
| accept Request(Item : out Item_Type) do |
|
|
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| -- if had to get new, then quickly |
| -- check cache for overflow. |
| accept PutBack(Item : in Item_Type) do |
|
|
| -- replace item in cache. |
|
|
| end PutBack; |
| -- if item put back has changed |
| -- then possibly update original. |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| -- the client code begins here: |
| declare |
|
|
| Cache : Cached_Items; |
| Item : Item_Type; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| Cache.Request(Item); |
| -- process. |
| Cache.PutBack(Item); |
|
|
| end; |
|
|
| It is the sequence of processing which is important here, Firstly the client task (remember, even if |
| the client is the main program it is still, logically, a task) creates the cache task which executes its |
| body. The first thing the cache (owner task) does is some procedural code, its initialisation, in this |
| case to open its log file. Next we have an accept statement, this is a rendezvous, and in this case |
| the two parties are the owner task, when it reaches the keyword accept and the client task that calls |
| Cache.Request(Item). |
|
|
| If the client task calls Request before the owner task has reached the accept then the client task |
| will wait for the owner task. However we would not expect the owner task to take very long to open |
| a log file, so it is more likely that it will reach the accept first and wait for a client task. |
|
|
| 59 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| When both client and owner tasks are at the rendezvous then the owner task executes the accept |
| code while the client task waits. When the owner task reaches the end of the rendezvous both the |
| owner and the client are set off again on their own way. |
|
|
| 7.2.2 |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| If we look closely at our example above you might notice that if the client task calls Request |
| twice in a row then you have a deadly embrace, the owner task cannot get to Request before |
| executing PutBack and the client task cannot execute PutBack until it has satisfied the second |
| call to Request. |
|
|
| To get around this problem we use a select statement which allows the task to specify a number of |
| entry points which are valid at any time. |
|
|
| task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
| Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| -- open the log file. |
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| loop |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
| -- replace item in cache. |
|
|
| end PutBack; |
| -- if item put back has changed |
| -- then possibly update original. |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| -- if had to get new, then quickly |
| -- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| We have done two major things, first we have added the select construct which says that during |
| the loop a client may call either of the entry points. The second point is that we moved a copy of the |
| entry point into the initialisation section of the task so that we must call Request before anything |
| else. It is worth noting that we can have many entry points with the same name and they may be the |
| same or may do something different but we only need one entry in the task specification. |
|
|
| In effect the addition of the select statement means that the owner task now waits on the select |
| itself until one of the specified accepts are called. |
|
|
| Note: possibly more important is the fact that we have not changed the specification for the task at all |
| yet!. |
|
|
| 60 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| 7.2.3 |
|
|
| guarded entries |
|
|
| Within a select statement it is possible to specify the conditions under which an accept may be |
| valid, so: |
|
|
| task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
| Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
| Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
| Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| -- open the log file. |
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| loop |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| when Number_Requested > 0 => |
| accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
| -- replace item in cache. |
|
|
| end PutBack; |
| -- if item put back has changed |
| -- then possibly update original. |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| -- if had to get new, then quickly |
| -- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| This (possibly erroneous) example adds two internal values, one to keep track of the number of items |
| in the cache, and the size of the cache. If no items have been read into the cache then you cannot |
| logicaly put anything back. |
|
|
| 7.2.4 delays |
|
|
| It is possible to put a delay statement into a task, this statement has two modes, delay for a given |
| amount of time, or delay until a given time. So: |
|
|
| delay 5.0; -- delay for 5 seconds |
| delay Ada.Calendar.Clock; -- delay until it is ... |
| delay until A_Time; -- Ada-95 equivalent of above |
|
|
| The first line is simple, delay the task for a given number, or fraction of, seconds. This mode takes a |
| parameter of type Duration specified in the package System. The next two both wait until a time |
|
|
| 61 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| is reached, the secodn line also takes a Duration, the third line takes a parameter of type Time |
| from package Ada.Calendar. |
|
|
| It is more interesting to note the effect of one of these when used in a select statement. For example, |
| if an accept is likely to take a long time you might use: |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| accept An_Entry do |
| end An_Entry; |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| delay 5.0; |
| Put("An_Entry: timeout"); |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| This runs the delay and the accept concurrently and if the delay completes before the accept |
| then the accept is aborted and the task continues at the statement after the delay, in this case the |
| error message. |
|
|
| It is possible to protect procedural code in the same way, so we might amend our example by: |
|
|
| task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
| Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
| Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
| Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
| begin |
|
|
| -- open the log file. |
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| loop |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| when Number_Requested > 0 => |
| accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
| -- replace item in cache. |
|
|
| end PutBack; |
| select |
|
|
| -- if item put back has changed |
| -- then possibly update original. |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| delay 2.0; |
| -- abort the cache update code |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| -- if had to get new, then quickly |
| -- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| 62 |
|
|
| 7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| 7.2.5 |
|
|
| select else |
|
|
| The else clause allows us to execute a non-blocking select statement, so we could code a polling |
| task, such as: |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| accept Do_Something do |
| end DO_Something; |
|
|
| else |
|
|
| -- do something else. |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| So that if no one has called the entry points specified we continue rather than waiting for a client. |
|
|
| 7.2.6 |
|
|
| termination |
|
|
| The example we have been working on does not end, it simply loops forever. We can terminate a task |
| by using the keyword terminate which executes a nice orderly cleanup of the task. (We can also |
| kill a task in a more immediate way using the abort command, this is NOT recommended). |
|
|
| The terminate alternative is used for a task to specify that the run time environment can terminate |
| the task if all its actions are complete and no clients are waiting. |
|
|
| loop |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| accept Do_Something do |
| end Do_Something; |
|
|
| or |
|
|
| terminate; |
| end select; |
|
|
| end loop; |
|
|
| The abort command is used by a client to terminate a task, possibly if it is not behaving correctly. |
| The command takes a task identifer as an argument, so using our example above we might say: |
|
|
| if Task_In_Error(Cache) then |
|
|
| abort Cache; |
|
|
| end if; |
|
|
| The then abort clause is very similar to the delay example above, the code between then |
| abort and end select is aborted if the delay clause finishes first. |
|
|
| select |
|
|
| delay 5.0; |
| Put("An_Entry: timeout"); |
|
|
| then abort |
|
|
| accept An_Entry do |
| end An_Entry; |
|
|
| end select; |
|
|
| 63 |
|
|
| 7.3. PROTECTED TYPES |
|
|
| 7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
| 7.2.7 |
|
|
| conditional entry calls |
|
|
| In addition to direct calls to entry points clients may rendezvous with a task with three conditional |
| forms of a select statement: |
|
|
| • Timed entry call |
|
|
| • Conditional entry call |
|
|
| • Asynchronous select |
|
|
| 7.3 Protected types |
|
|
| Protected types are a new feature added to the Ada-95 language standard. These act like the monitor |
| constructs found in other languages, which means that they monitor access to their internal data and |
| ensure that no two tasks can access the object at the same time. In effect every entry point is mutually |
| exclusive. Basically a protected type looks like: |
|
|
| protected type Cached_Items is |
|
|
| function Request return Item_Type; |
| procedure PutBack(Item : in Item_Type); |
|
|
| private |
|
|
| Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
| Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
| Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| protected body Cached_Items is |
|
|
| function Request return Item_Type is |
| begin |
|
|
| -- initialise, if required |
| -- satisfy from cache or get new. |
| -- if had to get new, then quickly |
| -- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
| end Request; |
| procedure PutBack(Item : in Item_Type) is |
| begin |
|
|
| -- initialise, if required |
| -- replace item in cache. |
| -- if item put back has changed |
| -- then possibly update original. |
|
|
| end Request; |
|
|
| end Cached_Items; |
|
|
| This is an implementation of our cache from the task discussion above. Note now that the names |
| Request and PutBack are now simply calls like any other. This does show some of the differences |
| between tasks and protected types, for example the protected type above, because it is a passive |
| object cannot completly initialise itself, so each procedure and/or function must check if it has been |
| initialised. Also we must do all processing within the stated procedures. |
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
| References |
|
|
| [1] Ada Language Reference Manual http://www.adahome/rm95 |
|
|
| [2] Ada Rationale |
|
|
| http://www.adahome.com/LRM/95/Rationale/rat95html/ |
|
|
| rat95-contents.html |
|
|
| [3] Ada Quality and Style: Guidelines for professional programmers |
|
|
| [4] Programming in Ada (3rd Edition), J.G.P.Barnes, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
| [5] Ada Programmers FAQ http://www.adahome.com/FAQ/programming.html# |
|
|
| title. |
|
|
| [6] Abstract Data Types Are Under Full Control with Ada9X (TRI-Ada ’94) http://www. |
|
|
| adahome.com/Resources/Papers.html |
|
|
| [7] Working With Ada9X Classes (TRI-Ada ’94) http://www.adahome.com/Resources/ |
|
|
| Papers.html |
|
|
| [8] Lovelace |
|
|
| on-line |
| lovelace.htm. |
|
|
| tutorial http://www.adahome.com/Tutorials/Lovelace/ |
|
|
| [9] Design and evolution of C++, Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
| [10] The annotated C++ reference manual, Margaret Ellis and Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
| Acknowledgements |
|
|
| My thanks must go to the following people for help, pointers, proof-reading, suggestions and encour- |
| agement. |
|
|
| S. Tucker Taft (Intermetrics), Magnus Kempe and Robb Nebbe (EPFL), Michael Bartz (University of |
| Memphis), David Weller, Kevin Nash (Bournemouth University), Laurent Guerby, Jono Powell, Bill |
| Wagner (Hazeltine). |
|
|
| Once again, thank you. |
|
|
| For comments, additions, corrections, gripes, kudos, etc. e-mail to: |
|
|
| Simon Johnston (Team Ada) – skj@rb.icl.co.uk |
|
|
| ICL Retail Systems |
|
|
| 65 |
|
|
| Index |
|
|
| accept, 58 |
| access types, 16 |
| Ada.Direct_IO, package, 53 |
| Ada.Sequential_IO, package, 53 |
| Ada.Text_IO, package, 52 |
| aggregates, 15 |
| arrays, 13 |
| attribute |
|
|
| First, 13 |
| Last, 13 |
| Length, 13 |
| Pos, 12 |
| Pred, 12 |
| Range, 13 |
| Succ, 12 |
| Val, 12 |
|
|
| case statement (switch in C), 25 |
| casting, 18 |
| Character, 9 |
| compound statement, 24 |
| concurrency, 57 |
| constant, 8 |
|
|
| declare, see compound statement |
| default parameters, 32 |
| delay, 61 |
| discriminats, 19 |
|
|
| entry, task, 58 |
| enumerations, 11 |
| exception handling, 29 |
| exceptions, 20 |
| exit statement, 27 |
|
|
| First, see attribute First |
| Fixed, 11 |
| Float, type, 10 |
| for loop, 26 |
|
|
| generic |
|
|
| package, 50 |
| procedure, 49 |
| types, 51 |
| generics, 49 |
| goto statement, 29 |
| guarded entries, 61 |
|
|
| hierarchical package, 40 |
|
|
| if statement, 24 |
| inheritance, 45 |
| Integer, 9 |
|
|
| Last, see attribute Last |
| Length, see attribute Length |
|
|
| modes, parameter passing modes, 32 |
|
|
| Object Oriented Programming, 43 |
| overloading, 31 |
|
|
| package, 37 |
| pointers, see access types |
| Pos, see attribute Pos |
| Pred, see attribute Pred |
| predefined exceptions, 34 |
| protected type, 64 |
|
|
| Range, see attribute Range |
| records, 15 |
| renaming, 41 |
| rendezvouz, 58 |
| representation of types, 20 |
| return statement, 28 |
|
|
| safety, 33 |
| select, 60 |
|
|
| else, 63 |
| slicing, arrays, 15 |
| streams, 55 |
| String, type, 10 |
| subprograms (procedures and functions), 30 |
|
|
| 66 |
|
|
| INDEX |
|
|
| INDEX |
|
|
| subtype, 9 |
| Succ, see attribute Succ |
|
|
| tagged type, 44 |
| task type, 58 |
| tasks, 57 |
| termination, 63 |
| type, 8 |
|
|
| Unchecked_Conversion, 35 |
| Unchecked_Deallocation, 36 |
|
|
| Val, see attribute Val |
| variant records, 19 |
|
|
| while loop, 26 |
|
|
| 67 |
|
|
| |