Re: Uninitialized out parameters.

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 16-04-06 23:53 , Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, ahlan@marriott.org wrote:
>
>> In the annotated RM, in the section concerning Null Procedures, it
>> says "There are no null functions because the return value has to be
>> constructed somehow; a function that always raises Program_Error
>> doesn't seem very useful or worth the complication" If there are no
>> null functions because a return value has to be constructed then
>> surely the same applies to null procedures that have out parameters.
>> These too should be prohibited [...]
>
> This seems to be right. It does not make much sense to allow the
> declaration of
>
>      procedure X(Formal: out T) is null;

If T has default initialization (which is now possible even for scalars, 
with the Default_Value aspect), that seems reasonable to me. It is 
equivalent to having "is begin null; end X;" as the body, which has a 
well-defined effect when there is a Default_Value, by RM 6.4.1(13.1/4) 
and other paragraphs in 6.4.1.

> while prohibiting the declaration of
>
>      function Y return R is null;

For a function, a null body is illegal (no "return" statement). Ok, 
that's a nit-pick; without that rule, this could be as defined as X, 
under the same circumstances.

> The point is, you can neither call X nor Y. Semantically, both statements
>
>      X(Actual);
>      Actual := Y;
>
> are equally useless, or at least their effect is equally undefined.

Not undefined in the case of X, when the type has a default value.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .