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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8e64f4db20d57eb5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Christopher Felaco <felaco@egr.uri.edu>
Subject: Call by reference vs. call by value
Date: 1996/07/20
Message-ID: <31F10E50.726@egr.uri.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169042998
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: University of Rhode Island
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: felaco@egr.uri.edu
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I came across a problem with a procedure that resembled the following:

type Simple_Vector is array (1 .. 2) of Float;

procedure Vector_Manipulation (X : in Simple_Vector;
                               Y : out Simple_Vector) is
begin

    Y (1) := X (1) + X (2);
    Y (2) := X (1) * X (2);

end Vector_Manipulation;

I was told that calling this procedure with the same in and out
parameters as follows would give unexpected results:

    Vector_Manipulation (X => Test_Vector, Y => Text_Vector);

The reason is that both parameters may be passed by reference, hence
modifying Y in the first line, modifies X as well, and the value of X
used in the second line is not what was desired.  I was surprised by
this, it sounds like a typical problem in C or C++, not something likely
to happen in Ada.  So I did some research and concluded from section 6.2
of the Ada 95 RM that it is entirely up to the compiler to determine how
arrays of simple elementary values are called.  I recall also reading
that ACT got itself in a bit of trouble by changing the behavior of gnat
to use call by reference for all records.

My reasons for posting this are twofold.  The first reason is to verify
that this is correct, and see if anyone else has been bitten by this
particular undefined behavior.  The second reason is to express some
disappointment.  I think in this area, C++ has a big advantage in that
it forces the programmer to be aware of whether a function uses
call-by-refernce of call-by-value semantics.  This is somewhat of a pain
at times, but at least it is obvious and clearly defined.  I had no idea
that Ada's behavior was undefined and wrongly assumed that in parameters
were always passed by value.

I realize that the solution to this problem in this case is to simply
make one assignment using an array aggregate, or change the procedure to
a function.  I have recommended this course of action.  I still think
that this type of error should not occur.  In many situations, the
solution may not so simple.  Ada's behavior should not be so
"implementation dependent".

- Chris