From: TUFFS1@alcoa.com
Subject: Assignment Overloading
Date: 6 Dec 88 13:05:00 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8812140455.AA16282@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> (raw)
I have an observation regarding the overloading of assignment. A
basic justification seems to be that when building/using an abstract
data type it becomes tedious to expand functional structures into
procedural structures. I agree. For example:
X := Y + Z; versus: Add(Y, Z, X);
X := A + B + C; versus: Add(A, B, Temp); Add(Temp, C, X); ... etc.
Pre-processing is one solution, but as noted in previous comments, the
final code is often what matters, and it's ugly.
To add fuel to the discussion, consider the following code fragment (as
might occur in a reusable matrix manipulation package):
type Vectors(Dimension: Positive) is private;
...
function "+"(Left, Right: in Vectors) return Vectors;
...
X, Y, Z: Vectors(3);
...
X := Y + Z; -- Assuming Y and Z are initialized somewhere above
The problems start when we choose an access type as the private
representation of Vectors:
...
private
type Aggregates is array(Positive range <>) of Numbers;
type Aggregate_Pointers is access Aggregates;
type Vectors(Dimension: Positive) is record
Elements: Aggregate_Pointers;
end record;
...
We might do this in order to get pass-by-reference semantics and speed
up the code. The problem is, what can we do about the storage which may
already be allocated to X, which will have become unavailable due to the
implementation of "+":
function "+"(Left, Right: Vectors) return Vectors is
Result: Vectors(Left.Dimension) := (Dimension => Left.Dimension,
Elements => new Aggregates(1 .. Left.Dimension));
begin
for Index in 1 .. Left.Dimension loop
Result.Elements(Index) := Left.Elements(Index) +
Right.Elements(Index);
end loop;
return Result; -- At this point, previous storage allocated
-- to the result object becomes inaccessible.
end "+";
If your Ada run-time system happens to support automatic garbage
collection, then fine. Otherwise, get ready for Storage_Error soner or
later! Let's suppose we want to use in-place computation to save space
and speed. Let's try:
X := X + Y;
Unfortunately, this does not give in-place computation, since after the
assignment X will be "pointing" to a whole new structure, and the
previous structure will be inaccessible. What we seem to need is a way
of "getting at" the thing which is the function result.
The cure mignt be something along the lines of a new attribute 'Result,
which would apply to a function, and act like an "in out" procedural
parameter:
function "+"(Left, Right: in Vectors) return Vectors is
begin
...
for Index in 1 .. Left.Dimension loop
"+"'Result.Elements(Index) := Left.Elements(Index) +
Right.Elements(Index);
end loop;
end;
This would cure the problems of non-deallocation of space, and allow
in-place computation to take place. Also, it does not mess with the
":=" operator. However, what do we "return"? Also, what is the
'Result in cascaded operations such as X := A + B + C; ?
Alternatively, the language rules could be re-defined to allow
operator names to be procedures with a single "out" or "in out"
procedure.
procedure "+"(Left, Right: in Vectors; Result: in out Vectors);
giving equivalently:
"+"(Left => A, Right => B, Result => X);
X := A + B;
and we could do away with the reserved word "function" completely.
Comments, flames, problems?
Simon Tuffs
Tuffs@Alcoa.Com
next reply other threads:[~1988-12-06 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1988-12-06 13:05 TUFFS1 [this message]
1988-12-14 18:05 ` Assignment Overloading William Thomas Wolfe,2847,
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox