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: 103376,3e9f0e99a5a40441
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Deriving from non-null abstract type
Date: 1995/03/29
Message-ID: <EACHUS.95Mar29115453@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100540701
references: <3lbh2q$8ov@israel-info.datasrv.co.il>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3lbh2q$8ov@israel-info.datasrv.co.il> benari@zeus.datasrv.co.il (Moti Ben-Ari) writes:

  > Of course, you can't create a value of the abstract type,
  > but it turns out that it is impossible to create a value
  > of the derived type...

   Not quite true, but it is a very good question.  It is illegal to
create an object or an aggregate of an abstract type:

  >     D: Derived_Type := (G with S);

  > because G would have to be an aggregate of an abstract type 
  > which is illegal. The only thing you can do is:

     ...but G is not required to be an aggregate, it is required to be
a subtype name or an expression.  Also, there is no requirement to use
an extension aggregate.  If you want to initialize the entire
record--and have the visibility to do it--you can use a simple
aggregate:

       D: Derived_Type := (G,S);

  Also Moti Ben-Ari discussed the subtype case:

 >     D: Derived_Type := (Abstract_Type with S);

 > which means that the component General_Info has to
 > be initialized in a separate statement.

   ...but missed the fact that the part of the object corresponding to
the parent type does get initialized if the parent type has default
expressions.  Also, the record component association list can override
any default assignments to components of the parent type, so it is
possible, just not required, to initialize all components.

   An interesting philosophical question is whether the prohibition on
aggregates of an abstract type in 3.9.3(7) was intended to apply to
this case.  I suspect not, but I don't think the ARG should consider
"fixing" it.  There doesn't seem to be any lost functionality--and
conversely it doesn't seem difficult to allow--but I don't see any
advantage to a change which is purely a syntactic patch to make
extension aggregates easier to read in some unusual cases.

     For those who care, going back to Moti's example, the legal way to
initialize the entire record using an extension aggregate is to say:

     D: Derived_Type := (Abstract_Type with General_Info => G,
                          Special_Info => S);
   
     instead of:

     D: Derived_Type := ((General_Info => G) with Special_Info => S);

  > Is there some way of creating a value that I don't see?

    Yep, see above.  Two of them.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...