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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Choices for modelling binary packet protocol in SPARK
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <ea89c015-6d8d-4ef0-a0ed-f9960a980c99@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <f07b6888-eb5b-4953-a2c9-5acb5b682f4f@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.177.171.182
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1247916203 29053 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2009 11:23:23
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:23:23 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.177.171.182;
	posting-account=Fz1-yAoAAACc1SDCr-Py2qBj8xQ-qC2q
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7127
Date: 2009-07-18T04:23:23-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 18 July, 07:46, xorque <xorquew...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm working on a protocol that uses many different binary packet
> types.
> They all inherit from one basic packet type.
>
[snip]

> I'm not sure, exactly, with a lack of variant records, how I'm
> meant to model this in SPARK.
>
> Am I going to be writing enormous case statements or is there
> some clever way to handle this kind of thing?

As a rule, SPARK (and high-integrity code generally) avoids
programming tricks - because the code becomes more error-prone for the
author, reviewer and compiler.

If the individual records are fairly small, is an ordinary record
acceptable:
type P_Type is record
  Option    : P_Option_Type;
  Timestamp : Integer;
  P1        : P1_Type;
  P2        : P2_Type;
end record;

Alternatively the language supports inheritance via tagged types, but
with restrictions (no class-wide programming, only one derived type
per package).

A different approach would be to use Unchecked_Conversion for the
individual record types, defining their layout with representation
clauses to get the correct format of the byte array. A tedious but
simple method is to use P1_Type and P2_Type as you have them for all
the internal processing, but with parallel record types that have
representation clauses suitable for UC to a byte array and operations
that convert between the two forms (these have to be explicit as
derived types aren't supported).

Phil Thornley