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,bc2c82b1e5c6fe83
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.211.38 with SMTP id mz6mr542805pbc.1.1330259134089;
        Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni11238pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alexander Senier <mail@senier.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about out parameters of unconstrained array type.
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:25:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <20120226132532.7fb8ec1b@t60>
References: <I8qdndMrnK9zZtXS4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
	<MPG.29b336d065dea044989689@news.zen.co.uk>
	<4NedncPWdPN9GtTS4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
	<MPG.29b4086bef3313be98968b@news.zen.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e6Gu2UbyOy2nuiHyFRTtfw";
	logging-data="31771"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CwDsNF8oUrdQEhtUfgeQY"
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3J8k50c44HCDVCNIacEZoYciwZM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-02-26T13:25:32+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:14:53 -0000
Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com> wrote:

> For your code above, if the cost of including the initialization of the 
> array is too high then the easiest way to remove the the error is 
> probably to add another parameter that is the length of the Description 
> string. Using Alexander's code:

Can anybody comment on the legality of using attributes of an out parameter of
an unconstrained (array) type in Ada? A brief skim through LRM could not
enlighten me...

If using 'Length (and other attributes) elsewhere than in a loop constraint
actually is legal Ada, than this seems like an unnecessary limitation of SPARK
that should be relaxed. For now, I would prefer accepting the resulting flow
error for several reasons:

* Default initialization may hide subsequent flow errors that would
  been spotted by the flow analysis otherwise (the coarse grained treatment
  of array makes that less important, though)

* As Phil said, (additional) default initialization may impose a significant
  performance overhead

* Passing in the upper bound of the array as a parameter IMHO makes the code
  less intuitive and readable than it could be - just to silence the flow
  analysis ;-(

Regards
Alex