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: 103376,2f8b28565f329871
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: local variables
Date: 1998/04/10
Message-ID: <x7v3efl8ty6.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 343073651
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <352E491F.4C6D@young.epc.lmms.lmco.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 892304159 nnrp-01:21772 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"B.Voh" <voh@young.epc.lmms.lmco.com> writes:

> Does new ADA support a retention of local variables similar to Fortran's
> "save" or C's "static" declaration?
> In my last encounter with ADA, some years back, I found that to be a
> rather crippling ommission and often working against the very principles
> (encapsulation) it was supposed to champion.

Current Ada is exactly like Ada83 in this respect; you get the effect
you want by using *package* variables.

-------- foo.h ---------

int f(void);

-------- foo.c ---------

static int fi = 0;

int f(void)
{
  fi++;
  return fi;
}

-------- foo.ads ---------

package foo is
  function f return integer;
end foo;

-------- foo.adb ---------

package body foo is
  fi : integer := 0;
  function f return integer is
  begin
    fi := fi + 1;
    return fi;
  end f;
end foo;

-------------------------

OK, within foo.c the scope of fi is a bit wider than it would have
been if it'd been declared inside f(), but I don't see this as being
that big a deal.

Remember that if you use tasking (or, in C, threads) you will have to
protect accesses to fi; putting it inside f() won't help.