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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Array of Variant Records Question...
Date: 1999/09/13
Message-ID: <37dd87b2@news1.prserv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 524671530
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
 <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909091910250.12989-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <37dcf193@news1.prserv.net> <wccyaeakcf0.fsf@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 13 Sep 1999 23:24:34 GMT, 129.37.62.170
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Mime-version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccyaeakcf0.fsf@world.std.com> , Robert A Duff 
<bobduff@world.std.com>  wrote:

> Have you considered:
>
>     type And_Exp(L, R : access Bool_Exp'Class) is
>       new Bool_Exp with null record;
>
> ?


No, not here, though I've used this technique for another pattern (the
Command pattern).


>>    function New_And
>>      (L, R : access Bool_Exp'Class)
>>       return Bool_Exp_Access is
>>
>>       use And_Exp_Storage;
>>
>>       Exp : constant Exp_Access := New_Exp;
>>       -- type Exp_Access is access all And_Exp;
>>    begin
>>       Exp.L := Bool_Exp_Access (L);    -- (1)
>>       Exp.R := Bool_Exp_Access (R);    -- (2)
>>
>>       return Bool_Exp_Access (Exp);    -- (3)
>>    end New_And;
>
> Something's wrong with that.  How can New_Exp know to allocate an
> And_Exp record?

New_Exp is provided by a private generic storage manager that looks like
this:

  private generic
    type Exp_Type is new Bool_Exp with private;
  package Bool_Exps.Storage is

    type Exp_Access is access all Exp_Type;

    function New_Exp return Exp_Access;

    procedure Do_Free (Exp : access Exp_Type);

  end Bool_Exps.Storage;

The package is instantiated like this:

  package And_Exp_Storage is
    new Storage (And_Exp);


> And the "Exp.L" and "Exp.R" are illegal, because
> there's (presumably) no such components?  I'm confused.

Yes, there are L and R components.  Here's what an And_Exp looks like:

    type And_Exp is
      new Bool_Exp with record
         L, R : Bool_Exp_Access;
      end record;

You need New_Exp to return the specific type, precisely to give you access
to the representation of the type.

But after you fill in the components, you have to (manually) convert it back
to the class-wide root type.


> How about:
>
>     return new Bool_Exp'(Bool_Exp_Access(L), Bool_Exp_Access(R));
>
> which avoids the need for one of the conversions?

But I think you really meant:

  return new And_Exp'(...);

In my implementation, all allocation goes through some storage manager.
(There's a separate instantiation for each specific type in the class.)

I'll be discussing the Interpreter pattern in my upcoming Design Patterns
tutorial at this year's SIGAda conference.  You're going to be there too,
right?  Maybe you and I can finally get to meet face-to-face...

Matt