From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,628d2a493f1e203d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Subtype conformance... not what I was expecting.
Date: 26 Jul 2006 14:23:27 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1153949007.159580.193020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <44c6db66$0$2928$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1153949013 30756 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2006 21:23:33
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:23:33 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5952
Date: 2006-07-26T14:23:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> I'm experimenting with Ada's handling of access to subprogram types. I
> was surprised to discover that the following example does not work (I'm
> using GNAT GPL 2006):
>
> procedure Check is
>     subtype Narrow is Integer range -10..10;
>     type Function_Ptr is access function(X : Narrow) return Integer;
>
>     function F(Para : Integer) return Narrow is
>     begin
>        return Para;
>     end F;
>
>     G      : Function_Ptr := F'Access;
>     Result : Integer;
> begin
>     Result := G(0);
> end Check;
>
> The compiler complains about the initialization of G with F'Access
> saying that it is not "subtype conformant." However, I believe this
> initialization would be type safe. Since F's argument types are super
> types of G's argument types, there is no context where G can be called
> that would violate the constraints on the underlying arguments of F.
> Similarly since F's return type is a subtype of G's return type,
> anything F might return would be acceptable as a return from G. I
> assumed that this was what subtype conformance was about, but apparently
> not.
>
> In fact, GNAT appears to require the argument and return subtypes to
> match exactly. However, this seems overly restrictive. I'm curious about
> the rationale for this restriction.

I don't know what the language designers' rationale was for requiring
the subtypes to statically match, although I do think that trying to
define a one-way "subtype conformance" that requires subtypes for IN
parameters and function results to be "statically a subset" of another
type may just be too complex to be worth the effort if it's not needed
by real programs.

However, I do foresee a possible problem if the rules were loosened.
In your example, if a function has a parameter of subtype "Narrow", a
compiler could work things out so that the parameter could be passed in
an 8- or 16-bit register, or something like that.  This probably
wouldn't make a difference in a simple example like yours.  But on some
processors, and if there were a larger number of parameters, this sort
of optimization *could* make a difference.  But a compiler wouldn't be
able to do this if there were a possibility that, in some other library
package (say), there were an access-to-subprogram type that were
compatible with *both* this function *and* a similar function whose
parameter has type "Integer" (assuming Integer is 32 bits).  Under the
current language rules, I don't think this is a problem.

                             -- Adam