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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!grebyn.com!karl
From: karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Limited types and generic parameters
Message-ID: <8902230551.AA02866@grebyn.com>
Date: 23 Feb 89 05:51:18 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Grebyn Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

[Ed - forwarded]

-- Karl --

Mats Weber asks: 

>> Consider the following piece of Ada code:
>> 
>>    generic
>>       type T is limited private;
>>    package GP is
>> 
>>       type R is
>>          record
>>             F : T;
>>          end record;
>> 
>>    end GP;
>> 
>>    package P is new GP(T => INTEGER);
>> 
>>    X : P.R := (F => 45);  -- *
>>    Y : P.R := (F => 77);  -- *

>>    Are the *-marked assignments correct ? In other words, is P.R a limited
>>    type ?

AI-398 answers a similar question for arrays:

    ... If the component type of an array type is a generic formal type or if
    the designated type of an access type is a generic formal type, the
    operations declared for the array and access type in the template depend
    on the class of the formal type.  If the array and access type
    declarations do not occur in the generic formal part, then the operations
    declared for these types in a generic instance are determined by the type
    denoted by the formal parameter in the instance.

This means that if type R in the example were an array type with component
type T, assignments to an object of type R declared in the template would not
be allowed, but assignments to an object declared elsewhere (or in an
instance) would be okay as long as the actual type is not limited.
The reasoning underlying this interpretation for arrays extends to record
types, although these types were not addressed explicitly in the AI.  So, in
short, the assignments in the example are considered legal.

Whether compilers support AI-398 is another question.  I don't think any tests
on this point exist in the ACVC suite, and even if they did, the test
objectives on this point are (or were) not consistent with AI-398.  But since
AI-398 is an approved commentary, compilers ought to support the kind of
assignments indicated in the question.

There are a number of other, rather subtle, issues raised in AI-398 related to
the effects of type derivation, but AI-398 follows the principal that the
appropriate operations are declared in the instance, even if the operations do
not exist in the template.

John B. Goodenough					Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu
Software Engineering Institute				412-268-6391