|
Ada-95: A guide for C and C++ programmers |
|
|
|
by Simon Johnston |
|
|
|
1995 |
|
|
|
Welcome |
|
|
|
... to the Ada guide especially written for C and C++ programmers. |
|
|
|
Summary |
|
|
|
I have endeavered to present below a tutorial for C and C++ programmers to show them what Ada |
|
can provide and how to set about turning the knowledge and experience they have gained in C/C++ |
|
into good Ada programming. This really does expect the reader to be familiar with C/C++, although |
|
C only programmers should be able to read it OK if they skip section 3. |
|
|
|
My thanks to S. Tucker Taft for the mail that started me on this. |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Contents |
|
|
|
1 Ada Basics. |
|
|
|
1.1 C/C++ types to Ada types. |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.1.1 Declaring new types and subtypes. . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.1.2 |
|
|
|
Simple types, Integers and Characters. . |
|
|
|
1.1.3 |
|
|
|
Strings. {3.6.3} . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.1.4 |
|
|
|
Floating {3.5.7} and Fixed {3.5.9} point. . |
|
|
|
1.1.5 Enumerations {3.5.1} and Ranges. |
|
|
|
1.1.6 Arrays {3.6}. |
|
|
|
. . . . . . |
|
|
|
1.1.7 Records {3.8}. |
|
|
|
. . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.1.8 Access types (pointers) {3.10}. . |
|
|
|
1.1.9 Ada advanced types and tricks. . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.1.10 C Unions in Ada, (food for thought). . |
|
|
|
1.2 C/C++ statements to Ada. . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.2.1 Compound Statement {5.6} . |
|
|
|
1.2.2 |
|
|
|
if Statement {5.3} . . . . |
|
|
|
1.2.3 |
|
|
|
switch Statement {5.4} . |
|
|
|
1.2.4 Ada loops {5.5} . . . . . |
|
|
|
1.2.4.1 while Loop . |
|
|
|
1.2.4.2 |
|
|
|
do Loop . . |
|
|
|
1.2.4.3 |
|
|
|
for Loop . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.2.4.4 |
|
|
|
break and continue . |
|
|
|
1.2.5 |
|
|
|
return {6.5} . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
1.2.6 |
|
|
|
labels and goto {5.8} . . |
|
|
|
1.2.7 |
|
|
|
exception handling {11.2} |
|
|
|
1.2.8 |
|
|
|
sub-programs . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.3 Ada Safety. |
|
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
|
1.3.1 |
|
|
|
Static provability. . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
1.3.2 |
|
|
|
Predefined exceptions and pragmas. |
|
|
|
1.3.3 Unchecked programming. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
2 Ada Packages. {7} |
|
|
|
2.1 What a package looks like |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
Include a package in another |
|
|
|
. . |
|
|
|
2.3 Package data hiding {7.3} . . . . |
|
|
|
2.4 Hierarchical packages. |
|
|
|
. . . . |
|
|
|
2.5 Renaming identifiers. |
|
|
|
. . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
3 Ada-95 Object Oriented Programming. |
|
|
|
3.1 The tagged type. . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
3.2 Class member attributes. |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
3.3 Class member functions. |
|
|
|
. . . . |
|
|
|
3.4 Virtual member functions. |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
3.5 Static members. |
|
|
|
. . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
3.6 Constructors/Destructors for Ada. |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
Inheritance, single and multiple. |
|
|
|
public/protected/private. |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
3.9 A more complete example. |
|
|
|
. . . |
|
|
|
4 Generics |
|
|
|
4.1 A generic procedure {12.6} . . . |
|
|
|
4.2 Generic packages {12.7} |
|
|
|
. . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
4.3 Generic types and other parameters {12.4} . |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
IO |
|
|
|
5.1 Ada.Text_IO . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
5.2 Ada.Sequential_IO and Ada.Direct_IO . |
|
|
|
5.3 Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Interfacing to other languages |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
|
7 Concurrency |
|
|
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
7.1 Tasks |
|
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.1.1 Tasks as threads . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.1.2 A Simple task . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.1.3 Task as types . . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
7.2 Task synchronization (Rendezvouz) |
|
|
|
7.2.1 |
|
|
|
entry/accept . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.2 |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.3 |
|
|
|
guarded entries . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.4 |
|
|
|
delays . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.5 |
|
|
|
select else . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.6 |
|
|
|
termination . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
7.2.7 |
|
|
|
conditional entry calls |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
7.3 Protected types |
|
|
|
. . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Introduction. |
|
|
|
This document is written primarily for C and C++ programmers and is set out to describe the Ada |
|
programming language in a way more accessible to them. I have used the standard Ada documentation |
|
conventions, code will look like this and keywords will look like this. I will include references |
|
to the Ada Reference Manual in braces and in italics, {1.1}, which denotes section 1.1. The ARM |
|
is reference 1 at the end of this document. Another useful reference is the Lovelace on-line tutorial |
|
which is a great way to pick up Ada basics. |
|
|
|
I will start out by describing the Ada predefined types, and the complex types, and move onto the |
|
simple language constructs. Section 2 will start to introduce some very Ada specific topics and |
|
section 3 describes the new Ada-95 Object Oriented programming constructs. Section 5 describes |
|
the Ada tools for managing concurrency, the task and protected types, these are worth investing some |
|
time getting to grips with. Section 6 is a tour of the Ada IO library and covers some of the differences |
|
in concept and implementation between it and C stdio. |
|
|
|
Please feel free to comment on errors, things you don’t like and things you would like to see. If I don’t |
|
get the comments then I can’t take it forward, and the question you would like answered is almost |
|
certainly causing other people problems too. |
|
|
|
If you are new to Ada and do not have an Ada compiler handy then why not try the GNAT Ada |
|
compiler. This compiler is based on the well known GCC C/C++ and Objective-C compiler and |
|
provides a high quality Ada-83 and Ada-95 compiler for many platforms. Here is the FTP site (ftp: |
|
//cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat) see if there is one for you. |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
Document Status. |
|
|
|
This document is still under revision and I receive a number of mails asking for improvements and |
|
fixing bugs and spelling mistakes I have introduced. I will try and keep this section up to date on what |
|
needs to be done and what I would like to do. |
|
|
|
Current Status |
|
|
|
Section 2 More on 2.3 (data hiding) and 2.4 (Hierarchical packages) |
|
|
|
Section 3 First issue of this section, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 have additional work planned. They may |
|
|
|
also require re-work pending comments. |
|
|
|
Section 5 Section 5.3 (streams) not yet done. |
|
|
|
Section 6 New sections to be added for each language. |
|
|
|
Section 7 Major re-work following comments from Bill Wagner, 7.2.7 added, requires some more |
|
|
|
words, and section 7.3 requires more justification etc. |
|
|
|
Wish List |
|
|
|
I would like to use a consistant example throughout, building it up as we go along. The trouble is I |
|
don’t think I have space in an HTML page to do this. |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Ada Basics. |
|
|
|
This section hopes to give you a brief introduction to Ada basics, such as types, statements and |
|
packages. Once you have these you should be able to read quite a lot of Ada source without difficulty. |
|
You are expected to know these things as we move on so it is worth reading. |
|
|
|
One thing before we continue, most of the operators are similar, but you should notice these differ- |
|
ences: |
|
|
|
Operator |
|
Assignment |
|
Equality |
|
NonEquality |
|
PlusEquals |
|
SubtractEquals |
|
MultiplyEquals |
|
DivisionEquals |
|
OrEquals |
|
AndEquals |
|
Modulus |
|
Remainder |
|
AbsoluteValue |
|
Exponentiation |
|
Range |
|
|
|
C/C++ Ada |
|
:= |
|
= |
|
/= |
|
|
|
= |
|
== |
|
!= |
|
+= |
|
-= |
|
*= |
|
/= |
|
|= |
|
&= |
|
% |
|
|
|
mod |
|
rem |
|
abs |
|
** |
|
. . |
|
|
|
One of the biggest things to stop C/C++ programmers in their tracks is that Ada is case insensitive, |
|
so begin BEGIN Begin are all the same. This can be a problem when porting case sensitive C code |
|
into Ada. |
|
|
|
Another thing to watch for in Ada source is the use of ’ the tick. The tick is used to access attributes |
|
for an object, for instance the following code is used to assign to value a the size in bits of an integer. |
|
|
|
int a = sizeof(int) * 8; |
|
|
|
a : Integer := Integer’Size; |
|
|
|
Another use for it is to access the attributes First and Last, so for an integer the range of possible |
|
values is Integer’First to Integer’Last. This can also be applied to arrays so if you are |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
passed an array and don’t know the size of it you can use these attribute values to range over it in a |
|
loop (see section 1.1.5 on page 11). The tick is also used for other Ada constructs as well as attributes, |
|
for example character literals, code statements and qualified expressions ( 1.1.8 on page 16). |
|
|
|
1.1 C/C++ types to Ada types. |
|
|
|
This section attempts to outline how to move C/C++ type declarations into an Ada program and help |
|
you understand Ada code. Section 1.1.8 introduces some Ada specific advanced topics and tricks you |
|
can use in such areas as bit fields, type representation and type size. |
|
|
|
Note that ’objects’ are defined in reverse order to C/C++, the object name is first, then the object type, |
|
as in C/C++ you can declare lists of objects by seperating them with commas. |
|
|
|
int i; |
|
int a, b, c; |
|
int j = 0; |
|
int k, l = 1; |
|
i : Integer; |
|
a, b, c : Integer; |
|
j : Integer := 0; |
|
k, l : Integer := 1; |
|
|
|
The first three declarations are the same, they create the same objects, and the third one assigns j the |
|
value 0 in both cases. However the fourth example in C leaves k undefined and creates l with the |
|
value 1. In the Ada example it should be clear that both k and l are assigned the value 1. |
|
|
|
Another difference is in defining constants. |
|
|
|
const int days_per_week = 7; |
|
days_per_week : constant Integer := 7; |
|
days_per_week : constant := 7; |
|
|
|
In the Ada example it is possible to define a constant without type, the compiler then chooses the |
|
most appropriate type to represent it. |
|
|
|
1.1.1 Declaring new types and subtypes. |
|
|
|
Before we delve into descriptions of the predefined Ada types it is important to show you how Ada |
|
defines a type. |
|
|
|
Ada is a strongly typed language, in fact possibly the strongest. This means that its type model is |
|
strict and absolutely stated. In C the use of typedef introduces a new name which can be used as a |
|
new type, though the weak typing of C and even C++ (in comparison) means that we have only really |
|
introduced a very poor synonym. Consider: |
|
|
|
typedef int INT; |
|
INT a; |
|
int b; |
|
a = b; // works, no problem |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
The compiler knows that they are both ints. Now consider: |
|
|
|
type INT is new Integer; |
|
a : INT; |
|
b : Integer; |
|
a := b; -- fails. |
|
|
|
The important keyword is new, which really sums up the way Ada is treating that line, it can be read |
|
as "a new type INT has been created from the type Integer", whereas the C line may be interpreted |
|
as "a new name INT has been introduced as a synonym for int". |
|
|
|
This strong typing can be a problem, and so Ada also provides you with a feature for reducing the |
|
distance between the new type and its parent, consider: |
|
|
|
subtype INT is Integer; |
|
a : INT; |
|
b : Integer; |
|
a := b; -- works. |
|
|
|
The most important feature of the subtype is to constrain the parent type in some way, for example to |
|
place an upper or lower boundary for an integer value (see section below on ranges). |
|
|
|
1.1.2 Simple types, Integers and Characters. |
|
|
|
We have seen above the Integer type, there are a few more with Ada, these are listed below. |
|
|
|
Integer, Long_Integer etc. Any Ada compiler must provide the Integer type, this is a signed integer, |
|
and of implementation defined size. The compiler is also at liberty to provide Long_Integer, |
|
Short_Integer, Long_Long_Integer etc as needed. |
|
|
|
Unsigned Integers Ada does not have a defined unsigned integer, so this can be synthesised by a |
|
|
|
range type (see section 1.1.5), and Ada-95 has a defined package, System.Unsigned_Types |
|
which provide such a set of types. |
|
Ada-95 has added a modular type which specifies the maximum value, and also the feature that |
|
arithmatic is cyclic, underflow/overflow cannot occur. This means that if you have a modular |
|
type capable of holding values from 0 to 255, and its current value is 255, then incrementing |
|
it wraps it around to zero. Contrast this with range types (previously used to define unsigned |
|
integer types) in section 1.1.5 below. Such a type is defined in the form: |
|
|
|
type BYTE is mod 256; |
|
type BYTE is mod 2**8; |
|
|
|
The first simply specifies the maximum value, the second specifies it in a more ’precise’ way, |
|
and the 2**x form is often used in system programming to specify bit mask types. Note: it is |
|
not required to use 2**x, you can use any value, so 10**10 is legal also. |
|
|
|
Character {3.5.2} This is very similar to the C char type, and holds the ASCII character set. However |
|
it is actually defined in the package Standard {A.1} as an enumerated type (see section |
|
1.1.5). There is an Ada equivalent of the C set of functions in ctype.h which is the package |
|
Ada.Characters.Handling. |
|
Ada Also defines a Wide_Character type for handling non ASCII character sets. |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Boolean {3.5.3} This is also defined in the package Standard as an enumerated type (see below) |
|
|
|
as (FALSE, TRUE). |
|
|
|
1.1.3 Strings. {3.6.3} |
|
|
|
Heres a god send to C/C++ programmers, Ada has a predefined String type (defined again in Standard). |
|
There is a good set of Ada packages for string handling, much better defined than the set provided by |
|
C, and Ada has a & operator for string concatenation. |
|
|
|
As in C the basis for the string is an array of characters, so you can use array slicing (see below) to |
|
extract substrings, and define strings of set length. What, unfortunatly, you cannot do is use strings as |
|
unbounded objects, hence the following. |
|
|
|
type A_Record is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
illegal : String; |
|
legal |
|
|
|
: String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
procedure check(legal : in String); |
|
|
|
The illegal structure element is because Ada cannot use ’unconstrained’ types in static declarations, |
|
so the string must be constrained by a size. Also note that the lower bound of the size must be greater |
|
than or equal to 1, the C/C++ array[4] which defines a range 0..3 cannot be used in Ada, 1..4 |
|
must be used. |
|
|
|
One way to specify the size is by initialisation, for example: |
|
|
|
Name : String := "Simon"; |
|
|
|
is the same as defining Name as a String(1..5) and assigning it the value "Simon" seperatly.. |
|
|
|
For parameter types unconstrained types are allowed, similar to passing int array[] in C. |
|
|
|
To overcome the constraint problem for strings Ada has a predefined package Ada.Strings.Unbounded |
|
which implements a variable length string type. |
|
|
|
1.1.4 Floating {3.5.7} and Fixed {3.5.9} point. |
|
|
|
Ada has two non-integer numeric types, the floating point and fixed point types. The predefined |
|
floating point type is Float and compilers may add Long_Float, etc. A new Float type may be |
|
defined in one of two ways: |
|
|
|
type FloatingPoint1 is new Float; |
|
type FloatingPoint2 is digits 5; |
|
|
|
The first simply makes a new floating point type, from the standard Float, with the precision and |
|
size of that type, regardless of what it is. |
|
|
|
The second line asks the compiler to create a new type, which is a floating point type "of some kind" |
|
with a minimum of 5 digits of precision. This is invaluable when doing numeric intensive operations |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
and intend to port the program, you define exactly the type you need, not what you think might do |
|
today. |
|
|
|
If we go back to the subject of the tick, you can get the number of digits which are actually used by |
|
the type by the attribute ’Digits. So having said we want a type with minimum of 5 digits we can |
|
verify this: |
|
|
|
number_of_digits : Integer := FloatingPoint2’Digits; |
|
|
|
Fixed point types are unusual, there is no predefined type ’Fixed’ and such type must be declared in |
|
the long form: |
|
|
|
type Fixed is delta 0.1 range -1.0..1.0; |
|
|
|
This defines a type which ranges from -1.0 to 1.0 with an accuracy of 0.1. Each element, accuracy, |
|
low-bound and high-bound must be defined as a real number. |
|
|
|
There is a specific form of fixed point types (added by Ada-95) called decimal types. These add a |
|
clause digits, and the range clause becomes optional. |
|
|
|
type Decimal is delta 0.01 digits 10; |
|
|
|
This specifies a fixed point type of 10 digits with two decimal places. The number of digits includes |
|
the decimal part and so the maximum range of values becomes -99,999,999.99. . . +99,999,999.99 |
|
|
|
1.1.5 Enumerations {3.5.1} and Ranges. |
|
|
|
Firstly enumerations. These are not at all like C/C++s enums, they are true sets and the fact that the |
|
Boolean type is in fact: |
|
|
|
type Boolean is (FALSE, TRUE); |
|
|
|
should give you a feeling for the power of the type. |
|
|
|
You have already seen a range in use (for strings), it is expressed as low .. |
|
of the most useful ways of expressing interfaces and parameter values, for example: |
|
|
|
high and can be one |
|
|
|
type Hours |
|
type Hours24 is range 0 .. 23; |
|
type Minutes is range 1 .. 60; |
|
|
|
is new Integer range 1 .. 12; |
|
|
|
There is now no way that a user can pass us an hour outside the range we have specified, even to |
|
the extent that if we define a parameter of type Hours24 we cannot assign a value of Hours even |
|
though it can only be in the range. Another feature is demonstrated, for Hours we have said we |
|
want to restrict an Integer type to the given range, for the next two we have asked the compiler |
|
to choose a type it feels appropriate to hold the given range, this is a nice way to save a little finger |
|
tapping, but should be avoided Ada provides you a perfect environment to specify precisely what you |
|
want, use it the first definition leaves nothing to the imagination. |
|
|
|
Now we come to the rules on subtypes for ranges, and we will define the two Hours again as follows: |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
type Hours24 |
|
subtype Hours is Hours24 range 1..12; |
|
|
|
is new range 0..23; |
|
|
|
This limits the range even further, and as you might expect a subtype cannot extend the range beyond |
|
its parent, so range 0 .. |
|
|
|
25 would have been illegal. |
|
|
|
Now we come to the combining of enumerations and ranges, so that we might have: |
|
|
|
type All_Days is (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, |
|
|
|
Friday, Saturday, Sunday); |
|
|
|
subtype Week_Days is All_Days range Monday .. Friday; |
|
subtype Weekend is All_Days range Saturday .. Sunday; |
|
|
|
We can now take a Day, and see if we want to go to work: |
|
|
|
Day : All_Days := Today; |
|
if Day in Week_Days then |
|
|
|
go_to_work; |
|
|
|
end if; |
|
|
|
Or you could use the form if Day in range Monday .. |
|
extra types. |
|
|
|
Friday and we would not need the |
|
|
|
Ada provides four useful attributes for enumeration type handling, note these are used slightly differ- |
|
ently than many other attributes as they are applied to the type, not the object. |
|
|
|
Succ This attribute supplies the ’successor’ to the current value, so the ’Succ value of an object |
|
|
|
containing Monday is Tuesday. |
|
Note: If the value of the object is Sunday then an exception is raised, you cannot Succ past |
|
the end of the enumeration. |
|
|
|
Pred This attribute provides the ’predecessor’ of a given value, so the ’Pred value of an object |
|
|
|
containing Tuesday is Monday. |
|
Note: the rule above still applies ’Pred of Monday is an error. |
|
|
|
Val This gives you the value (as a member of the enumeration) of element n in the enumeration. Thus |
|
|
|
Val(2) is Wednesday. |
|
Note: the rule above still applies, and note also that ’Val(0) is the same as ’First. |
|
|
|
Pos This gives you the position in the enumeration of the given element name. Thus ’Pos(Wednesday) |
|
|
|
is 2. |
|
Note: the range rules still apply, also that ’Last will work, and return Sunday. |
|
|
|
All_Days’Succ(Monday) = Tuesday |
|
All_Days’Pred(Tuesday) = Monday |
|
All_Days’Val(0) = Monday |
|
All_Days’First = Monday |
|
All_Days’Val(2) = Wednesday |
|
All_Days’Last = Sunday |
|
All_Days’Succ(All_Days’Pred(Tuesday)) = Tuesday |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Ada also provides a set of 4 attributes for range types, these are intimatly associated with those above |
|
and are: |
|
|
|
First This provides the value of the first item in a range. Considering the range 0 .. 100 then |
|
|
|
’First is 0. |
|
|
|
Last This provides the value of the last item in a range, and so considering above, ’Last is 100. |
|
|
|
Length This provides the number of items in a range, so ’Length is actually 101. |
|
|
|
Range This funnily enough returns in this case the value we gave it, but you will see when we come |
|
|
|
onto arrays how useful this feature is. |
|
|
|
As you can see these have no direct C/C++ equivalent and are part of the reason for Ada’s reputation |
|
for safety, you can define for a parameter exactly the range of values it might take, it all amounts to |
|
better practice for large developments where your interface is read by many people who may not be |
|
able to tell that the integer parameter day starts at 0, which indicates Wednesday etc. |
|
|
|
1.1.6 Arrays {3.6}. |
|
|
|
Arrays in Ada make use of the range syntax to define their bounds and can be arrays of any type, and |
|
can even be declared as unknown size. |
|
|
|
Some example: |
|
|
|
char name[31]; |
|
int track[3]; |
|
int dbla[3][10]; |
|
int init[3] = { 0, 1, 2 }; |
|
typedef char[31] name_type; |
|
track[2] = 1; |
|
dbla[0][3] = 2; |
|
|
|
Name : array (0 .. 30) of Character; -- OR |
|
Name : String (1 .. 30); |
|
Track : array (0 .. 2) of Integer; |
|
DblA |
|
: array (0 .. 2) of array (0 .. 9) of Integer; -- OR |
|
DblA |
|
: array (0 .. 2,0 .. 9) of Integer; |
|
: array (0 .. 2) of Integer := (0, 1, 2); |
|
Init |
|
type Name_Type is array (0 .. 30) of Character; |
|
track(2) |
|
:= 1; |
|
dbla(0,3) := 2; |
|
-- Note try this in C. |
|
a, b : Name_Type; |
|
a := b; -- will copy all elements of b into a. |
|
|
|
Simple isn’t it, you can convert C arrays into Ada arrays very easily. What you don’t get is all the |
|
things you can do with Ada arrays that you can’t do in C/C++. |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
non-zero based ranges. Because Ada uses ranges to specify the bounds of an array then you can |
|
easily set the lower bound to anything you want, for example: |
|
|
|
Example : array (-10 .. 10) of Integer; |
|
|
|
non-integer ranges. |
|
In the examples above we have used the common abbreviation for range spec- |
|
ifiers. The ranges above are all integer ranges, and so we did not need to use the correct form which |
|
is: |
|
|
|
array(type range low .. high) |
|
|
|
which would make Example above array(Integer range -10 .. |
|
where we’re going, take an enumerated type, All_Days and you can define an array: |
|
|
|
10). Now you can see |
|
|
|
Hours_Worked : array (All_Days range Monday .. Friday); |
|
|
|
unbounded array types. The examples above did demonstrate how to declare an array type. One |
|
of Ada’s goals is reuse, and to have to define a function to deal with a 1..10 array, and another for a |
|
0..1000 array is silly. Therefore Ada allows you to define unbounded array types. An unbounded type |
|
can be used as a parameter type, but you cannot simply define a variable of such a type. Consider: |
|
|
|
Vector is array (Integer range <>) of Float; |
|
|
|
type |
|
procedure sort_vector(sort_this : in out Vector); |
|
Illegal_Variable : Vector; |
|
Legal_Variable |
|
subtype SmallVector is Vector(0..1); |
|
Another_Legal |
|
|
|
: Vector(1..5); |
|
|
|
: SmallVector; |
|
|
|
This does allow us great flexibility to define functions and procedures to work on arrays regardless |
|
of their size, so a call to sort_vector could take the Legal_Variable object or an object of |
|
type SmallVector, etc. Note that a variable of type Smallvector is constrained and so can be |
|
legally created. |
|
|
|
array range attributes. |
|
If you are passed a type which is an unbounded array then if you want to |
|
loop through it then you need to know where it starts. So we can use the range attributes introduced |
|
in 1.1.5 to iterate over a given array thus: attributes for array types. Consider: |
|
|
|
Example : array (1 .. 10) of Integer; |
|
for i in Example’First .. Example’Last loop |
|
for i in Example’Range loop |
|
|
|
Note that if you have a multiple dimension array then the above notation implies that the returned |
|
values are for the first dimension, use the notation Array_Name’attribute(dimension) for |
|
multi-dimensional arrays. |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Initialisation by range (Aggregates {}???) When initialising an array one can initialise a range of |
|
elements in one go: |
|
|
|
Init : array (0 .. 3) of Integer := (0 .. 3 => 1); |
|
Init : array (0 .. 3) of Integer := (0 => 1, others => 0); |
|
|
|
The keyword others sets any elements not explicitly handled. |
|
|
|
Slicing Array slicing is something usually done with memcpy in C/C++. Take a section out of one |
|
array and assign it into another. |
|
|
|
Large : array (0 .. 100) of Integer; |
|
Small : array (0 .. 3) of Integer; |
|
-- extract section from one array into another. |
|
Small(0 .. 3) := Large(10 .. 13); |
|
-- swap top and bottom halfs of an array. |
|
Large := Large(51 .. 100) & Large(1..50); |
|
|
|
Note: Both sides of the assignment must be of the same type, that is the same dimensions with each |
|
element the same. The following is illegal. |
|
|
|
-- extract section from one array into another. |
|
Small(0 .. 3) := Large(10 .. 33); |
|
-- |
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ range too big. |
|
|
|
1.1.7 Records {3.8}. |
|
|
|
You shouldn’t have too much problem here, you can see an almost direct mapping from C/C++ to |
|
Ada for simple structures. Note the example below does not try to convert type to type, thus the C |
|
char*, to hold a string is converted to the Ada String type. |
|
|
|
struct _device { |
|
|
|
int major_number; |
|
int minor_number; |
|
char name[20]; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
typedef struct _device Device; |
|
|
|
type struct_device is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
major_number : Integer; |
|
minor_number : Integer; |
|
name : String(1 .. 19); |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
type Device is new struct_device; |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
As you can see, the main difference is that the name we declare for the initial record is a type, and |
|
can be used from that point on. In C all we have declared is a structure name, we then require the |
|
additional step of typedef-ing to add a new type name. |
|
|
|
Ada uses the same element reference syntax as C, so to access the minor_number element of an |
|
object lp1 of type Device we write lp1.minor_number. Ada does allow, like C, the initialisation |
|
of record members at declaration. In the code below we introduce a feature of Ada, the ability to |
|
name the elements we are going to initialise. This is useful for clarity of code, but more importantly |
|
it allows us to only initialise the bits we want. |
|
|
|
Device lp1 = {1, 2, "lp1"}; |
|
lp1 : Device := (1, 2, "lp1"); |
|
lp2 : Device := (major_number => 1, |
|
minor_number => 3, |
|
name => "lp2"); |
|
|
|
tmp : Device := (major_number => 255, |
|
|
|
name => "tmp"); |
|
|
|
When initialising a record we use an aggregate, a construct which groups together the members. This |
|
facility (unlike aggregates in C) can also be used to assign members at other times as well. |
|
|
|
tmp : Device; |
|
-- some processing |
|
tmp := (major_number => 255, name => "tmp"); |
|
|
|
This syntax can be used anywhere where parameters are passed, initialisation (as above) function/procedure |
|
calls, variants and discriminants and generics. The code above is most useful if we have a default value |
|
for minor_number, so the fact that we left it out won’t matter. This is possible in Ada. |
|
|
|
This facility improves readability and as far as most Ada programmers believe maintainability. |
|
|
|
type struct_device is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
major_number : Integer := 0; |
|
minor_number : Integer := 0; |
|
name : String(1 .. 19) := "unknown"; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
Structures/records like this are simple, and there isn’t much more to say. The more interesting problem |
|
for Ada is modelling C unions (see section 1.1.10 on page 22). |
|
|
|
1.1.8 Access types (pointers) {3.10}. |
|
|
|
The topic of pointers/references/access types is the most difficult, each language has its own set of |
|
rules and tricks. In C/C++ the thing you must always remember is that the value of a pointer is the |
|
real memory address, in Ada it is not. It is a type used to access the data. |
|
|
|
Ada access types are safer, and in some ways easier to use and understand, but they do mean that a |
|
lot of C code which uses pointers heavily will have to be reworked to use some other means. |
|
|
|
The most common use of access types is in dynamic programming, for example in linked lists. |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
struct _device_event { |
|
|
|
int major_number; |
|
int minor_number; |
|
int event_ident; |
|
struct _device_event* next; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
|
|
type Device_Event; |
|
type Device_Event_Access is access Device_Event; |
|
type Device_Event is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
major_number : Integer := 0; |
|
minor_number : Integer := 0; |
|
event_ident |
|
: Integer := 0; |
|
next : Device_Event_Access := null; |
|
-- Note: the assignement to null is not required, |
|
-- Ada automatically initialises access types to |
|
-- null if no other value is specified. |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
The Ada code may look long-winded but it is also more expressive, the access type is declared before |
|
the record so a real type can be used for the declaration of the element next. Note: we have to forward |
|
declare the record before we can declare the access type, is this extra line worth all the moans we hear |
|
from the C/C++ community that Ada is overly verbose? |
|
|
|
When it comes to dynamically allocating a new structure the Ada allocator syntax is much closer to |
|
C++ than to C. |
|
|
|
Event_1 := new Device_Event; |
|
Event_1.next := new Device_Event’(1, 2, EV_Paper_Low, null); |
|
|
|
There are three things of note in the example above. Firstly the syntax, we can say directly that |
|
we want a new thing, none of this malloc rubbish. Secondly that there is no difference in syntax |
|
between access of elements of a statically allocated record and a dynamically allocated one. We use |
|
the record.element syntax for both. Lastly that we can initialise the values as we create the |
|
object, the tick is used again, not as an attribute, but with parenthases in order to form a qualified |
|
expresssion. |
|
|
|
Ada allows you to assign between access types, and as you would expect it only changes what the |
|
access type points to, not the contents of what it points to. One thing to note again, Ada allows you to |
|
assign one structure to another if they are of the same type, and so a syntax is required to assign the |
|
contents of an access type, its easier to read than write, so: |
|
|
|
dev1, dev2 : Device_Event; |
|
pdv1, pdv2 : Device_Event_Access; |
|
dev1 := dev2; -- all elements copied. |
|
pdv1 := pdv2; -- pdv1 now points to contents of pdv2. |
|
pdv1.all := pdv2.all; -- !! |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
What you may have noticed is that we have not discussed the operator to free the memory we have |
|
allocated, the equivalent of C’s free() or C++’s delete. |
|
|
|
There is a good reason for this, Ada does not have one. |
|
|
|
To digress for a while, Ada was designed as a language to support garbage collection, that is the |
|
runtime would manage deallocation of no longer required dynamic memory. However at that time |
|
garbage collection was slow, required a large overhead in tracking dynamic memory and tended to |
|
make programs irratic in performance, slowing as the garbage collector kicks in. The language spec- |
|
ification therefore states {13.11} "An implementation need not support garbage collection ...". This |
|
means that you must, as in C++ manage your own memory deallocation. |
|
|
|
Ada requires you to use the generic procedure Unchecked_Deallocation (see 1.3.3 on page 36) |
|
to deallocate a dynamic object. This procedure must be instantiated for each dynamic type and should |
|
not (ideally) be declared on a public package spec, ie provide the client with a deallocation procedure |
|
which uses Unchecked_Deallocation internally. |
|
|
|
1.1.9 Ada advanced types and tricks. |
|
|
|
Casting (wow) As you might expect from what we have seen so far Ada must allow us some way |
|
to relax the strong typing it enforces. In C the cast allows us to make anything look like something |
|
else, in Ada type coersion can allow you to convert between two similar types, ie: |
|
|
|
type Thing is new Integer; |
|
an_Integer : Integer; |
|
a_Thing : Thing; |
|
an_Integer := a_Thing; -- illegal |
|
an_Integer := Integer(a_Thing); |
|
|
|
This can only be done between similar types, the compiler will not allow such coersion between very |
|
different types, for this you need the generic procedure Unchecked_Conversion (see 1.3.3 on |
|
page 35) which takes as an argument one type, and returns another. The only constraint on this is that |
|
they must be the same size. |
|
|
|
Procedure types. {} Ada-83 did not allow the passing of procedures as subprogram parameters at |
|
execution time, or storing procedures in records etc. The rationale for this was that it broke the ability |
|
to statically prove the code. Ada-95 has introduced the ability to define types which are in effect |
|
similar to C’s ability to define pointers to functions. |
|
|
|
In C/C++ there is the most formidable syntax for defining pointers to functions and so the Ada syntax |
|
should come as a nice surprise: |
|
|
|
typedef int (*callback_func)(int param1, int param2); |
|
|
|
type Callback_Func is access function(param_1 : in Integer; |
|
param_2 : in Integer) |
|
|
|
return Integer; |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Discriminant types {3.7}. Discriminant types are a way of parameterising a compound type (such |
|
as a record, tagged, task or protected type). For example: |
|
|
|
type Event_Item is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Event_ID |
|
Event_Info : String(1 .. 80); |
|
|
|
: Integer; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
type Event_Log(Max_Size : Integer) is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Log_Opened : Date_Type; |
|
Events : array (1 .. Max_Size) of Event_Item; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
First we declare a type to hold our event information in. We then declare a type which is a log of such |
|
events, this log has a maximum size, and rather than the C answer, define an array large enough for |
|
the maximum ever, or resort to dynamic programming the Ada approach is to instantiate the record |
|
with a max value and at time of instantiation define the size of the array. |
|
|
|
My_Event_Log : Event_Log(1000); |
|
|
|
If it is known that nearly all event logs are going to be a thousand items in size, then you could make |
|
that a default value, so that the following code is identical to that above. |
|
|
|
type Event_Log(Max_Size : Integer := 1000) is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Log_Opened : Date_Type |
|
Events : array (Integer range 1 .. Max_Size) of Event_Item; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
My_Event_Log : Event_Log; |
|
|
|
Again this is another way in which Ada helps, when defining an interface, to state precisely what we |
|
want to provide. |
|
|
|
Variant records {3.8.1}. Anyone who has worked in a Pascal language will recognise variant |
|
records, they are a bit like C/C++ unions except that the are very different :-) |
|
|
|
Ada variant records allow you to define a record which has 2 or more blocks of data of which only |
|
one is visible at any time. The visibility of the block is determined by a discriminant which is then |
|
’cased’. |
|
|
|
type Transport_Type is (Sports, Family, Van); |
|
|
|
type Car(Type : Transport_Type) is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Registration_Date : Date_Type; |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Colour : Colour_Type; |
|
case Type is |
|
|
|
when Sports => |
|
|
|
Soft_Top : Boolean; |
|
|
|
when Family => |
|
|
|
Number_Seats : Integer; |
|
Rear_Belts : Boolean; |
|
|
|
when Van => |
|
|
|
Cargo_Capacity: Integer; |
|
|
|
end case; |
|
end record; |
|
|
|
So if you code My_Car : |
|
Car(Family); then you can ask for the number of seats in the car, |
|
and whether the car has seat belts in the rear, but you cannot ask if it is a soft top, or what its cargo |
|
capacity is. |
|
|
|
I guess you’ve seen the difference between this and C unions. In a C union representation of the above |
|
any block is visible regardless of what type of car it is, you can easily ask for the cargo capacity of |
|
a sports car and C will use the bit pattern of the boolean to provide you with the cargo capacity. Not |
|
good. |
|
|
|
To simplify things you can subtype the variant record with types which define the variant (note in the |
|
example the use of the designator for clarity). |
|
|
|
subtype Sports_Car is Car(Sports); |
|
subtype Family_Car is Car(Type => Family); |
|
subtype Small_Van |
|
|
|
is Car(Type => Van); |
|
|
|
Exceptions {11.1}. Exceptions are a feature which C++ is only now getting to grips with, although |
|
Ada was designed with exceptions included from the beginning. This does mean that Ada code will |
|
use exceptions more often than not, and certainly the standard library packages will raise a number of |
|
possible exceptions. |
|
|
|
Unlike C++ where an exception is identified by its type in Ada they are uniquely identified by name. |
|
To define an exception for use, simply |
|
|
|
parameter_out_of_range : Exception; |
|
|
|
These look and feel like constants, you cannot assign to them etc, you can only raise an exception and |
|
handle an exception. |
|
|
|
Exceptions can be argued to be a vital part of the safety of Ada code, they cannot easily be ignored, |
|
and can halt a system quickly if something goes wrong, far faster than a returned error code which in |
|
most cases is completely ignored. |
|
|
|
System Representation of types {13}. As you might expect with Ada’s background in embedded |
|
and systems programming there are ways in which you can force a type into specific system repre- |
|
sentations. |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
type BYTE is range 0 .. 255; |
|
for BYTE use 8; |
|
|
|
This first example shows the most common form of system representation clause, the size attribute. |
|
We have asked the compiler to give us a range, from 0 to 255 and the compiler is at liberty to provide |
|
the best type available to hold the representation. We are forcing this type to be 8 bits in size. |
|
|
|
type DEV_Activity is (READING, WRITING, IDLE); |
|
for DEV_Activity use (READING => 1, WRITING => 2, IDLE => 3); |
|
|
|
Again this is useful for system programming it gives us the safety of enumeration range checking, so |
|
we can only put the correct value into a variable, but does allow us to define what the values are if |
|
they are being used in a call which expects specific values. |
|
|
|
type DEV_Available is BYTE; |
|
for DEV_Available use at 16#00000340#; |
|
|
|
This example means that all objects of type DEV_Available are placed at memory address 340 |
|
(Hex). This placing of data items can be done on a per object basis by using: |
|
|
|
type DEV_Available is BYTE; |
|
Avail_Flag : DEV_Available; |
|
for Avail_Flag’Address use 16#00000340#; |
|
|
|
Note the address used Ada’s version of the C 0x340 notation, however the general form is base#number# |
|
where the base can be anything, including 2, so bit masks are real easy to define, for example: |
|
|
|
Is_Available : constant BYTE := 2#1000_0000#; |
|
Not_Available: constant BYTE := 2#0000_0000#; |
|
|
|
Another feature of Ada is that any underscores in numeric constants are ignored, so you can break |
|
apart large numbers for readability. |
|
|
|
type DEV_Status is 0 .. 15; |
|
|
|
type DeviceDetails is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
status : DEV_Activity; |
|
rd_stat: DEV_Status; |
|
wr_stat: DEV_Status; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
for DeviceDetails use |
|
|
|
record at mod 2; |
|
|
|
status |
|
at 0 range 0 .. 7; |
|
rd_stat at 1 range 0 .. 3; |
|
wr_stat at 1 range 4 .. 7; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1.1. C/C++ TYPES TO ADA TYPES. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
This last example is the most complex, it defines a simple range type, and a structure. It then defines |
|
two things to the compiler, first the mod clause sets the byte packing for the structure, in this case |
|
back on two-byte boundaries. The second part of this structure defines exactly the memory image of |
|
the record and where each element occurs. The number after the ’at’ is the byte offset and the range, |
|
or size, is specified in number of bits. |
|
|
|
From this you can see that the whole structure is stored in two bytes where the first byte is stored as |
|
expected, but the second and third elements of the record share the second byte, low nibble and high |
|
nibble. |
|
|
|
This form becomes very important a little later on. |
|
|
|
1.1.10 C Unions in Ada, (food for thought). |
|
|
|
Ada has more than one way in which it can represent a union as defined in a C program, the method |
|
you choose depends on the meaning and usage of the C union. |
|
|
|
Firstly we must look at the two ways unions are identified. Unions are used to represent the data in |
|
memory in more than one way, the programmer must know which way is relevant at any point in time. |
|
This variant identifier can be inside the union or outside, for example: |
|
|
|
struct _device_input { |
|
|
|
int device_id; |
|
union { |
|
|
|
type_1_data from_type_1; |
|
type_2_data from_type_2; |
|
|
|
} device_data; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
void get_data_func(_device_input* from_device); |
|
|
|
union device_data { |
|
|
|
type_1_data from_type_1; |
|
type_2_data from_type_2; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
void get_data_func(int *device_id, device_data* from_device); |
|
|
|
In the first example all the data required is in the structure, we call the function and get back a structure |
|
which holds the union and the identifier which denotes which element of the union is active. In the |
|
second example only the union is returned and the identifier is seperate. |
|
|
|
The next step is to decide whether, when converting such code to Ada, you wish to maintain simply |
|
the concept of the union, or whether you are required to maintain the memory layout also. Note: the |
|
second choice is usually only if your Ada code is to pass such a structure to a C program or get one |
|
from it. |
|
|
|
If you are simply retaining the concept of the union then you would not use the second form, use the |
|
first form and use a variant record. |
|
|
|
type Device_ID is new Integer; |
|
type Device_Input(From_Device : Device_ID) is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
case From_Device is |
|
|
|
when 1 => |
|
|
|
From_Type_1 : Type_1_Data; |
|
|
|
when 2 => |
|
|
|
From_Type_2 : Type_2_Data; |
|
|
|
end case; |
|
end record; |
|
|
|
The above code is conceptually the same as the first piece of C code, however it will probably look |
|
very different, you could use the following representation clause to make it look like the C code (type |
|
sizes are not important). |
|
|
|
for Device_Input use |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
From_Device at 0 range 0 .. 15; |
|
From_Type_1 at 2 range 0 .. 15; |
|
From_Type_2 at 2 range 0 .. 31; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
You should be able to pass this to and from C code now. You could use a representation clause for the |
|
second C case above, but unless you really must pass it to some C code then re-code it as a variant |
|
record. |
|
|
|
We can also use the abilities of Unchecked_Conversion to convert between different types |
|
(see 1.3.3 on page 35). This allows us to write the following: |
|
|
|
type Type_1_Data is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Data_1 : Integer; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
type Type_2_Data is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Data_1 : Integer; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
function Type_1_to_2 is new Unchecked_Conversion |
|
|
|
(Source => Type_1_data, Target => Type_2_Data); |
|
|
|
This means that we can read/write items of type Type_1_Data and when we need to represent the |
|
data as Type_2_Data we can simply write |
|
|
|
Type_1_Object : Type_1_Data := ReadData; |
|
: |
|
Type_2_Object : Type_2_Data := Type_1_to_2(Type_1_Object); |
|
|
|
1.2 C/C++ statements to Ada. |
|
|
|
I present below the set of C/C++ statement types available, with each its Ada equivalent. |
|
|
|
Note: All Ada statements can be qualified by a name, this be discussed further in the section on Ada |
|
looping constructs, however it can be used anywhere to improve readability, for example: |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Init_Code: |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Some_Code; |
|
|
|
end Init_Code; |
|
|
|
Main_Loop: |
|
|
|
loop |
|
|
|
if Some_Value then |
|
|
|
exit loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
|
end if; |
|
|
|
end loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
|
Term_Code: |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Some_Code; |
|
|
|
end Term_Code; |
|
|
|
end A_Block; |
|
|
|
1.2.1 Compound Statement {5.6} |
|
|
|
A compound statement is also known as a block and in C allows you to define variables local to that |
|
block, in C++ variables can be defined anywhere. In Ada they must be declared as part of the block, |
|
but must appear in the declare part just before the block starts. |
|
|
|
{ |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
declarations |
|
statements |
|
|
|
declare |
|
|
|
declarations |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
1.2.2 |
|
|
|
if Statement {5.3} |
|
|
|
If statements are the primary selection tool available to programmers. The Ada if statement also has |
|
the ’elsif’ construct (which can be used more than once in any if statement), very useful for large |
|
complex selections where a switch/case statement is not possible. |
|
|
|
Note: Ada does not require brackets around the expressions used in if, case or loop statements. |
|
|
|
if (expression) |
|
{ |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
} else { |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
if expression then |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
elsif expression then |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
else |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end if; |
|
|
|
1.2.3 |
|
|
|
switch Statement {5.4} |
|
|
|
The switch or case statement is a very useful tool where the number of possible values is large, and |
|
the selection expression is of a constant scalar type. |
|
|
|
switch (expression) |
|
{ |
|
|
|
case value: statement |
|
default: statement |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
case expression is |
|
|
|
=> statement |
|
when value |
|
when others => statement |
|
|
|
end case; |
|
|
|
There is a point worth noting here. In C the end of the statement block between case statements is a |
|
break statement, otherwise we drop through into the next case. In Ada this does not happen, the end |
|
of the statement is the next case. |
|
|
|
This leads to a slight problem, it is not uncommon to find a switch statement in C which looks like |
|
this: |
|
|
|
switch (integer_value) { |
|
case 1: |
|
case 2: |
|
case 3: |
|
case 4: |
|
|
|
value_ok = 1; |
|
break; |
|
|
|
case 5: |
|
case 6: |
|
case 7: |
|
|
|
break; |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
This uses ranges (see 1.1.5 on page 11) to select a set of values for a single operation, Ada also allows |
|
you to or values together, consider the following: |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
case integer_value is |
|
|
|
when 1 .. 4 => value_ok := 1; |
|
when 5 | 6 | 7 => null; |
|
|
|
end case; |
|
|
|
You will also note that in Ada there must be a statement for each case, so we have to use the Ada |
|
null statement as the target of the second selection. |
|
|
|
1.2.4 Ada loops {5.5} |
|
|
|
All Ada loops are built around the simple loop ... end construct |
|
|
|
loop |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
1.2.4.1 while Loop |
|
|
|
The while loop is common in code and has a very direct Ada equivalent. |
|
|
|
while (expression) |
|
{ |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
while expression loop |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
1.2.4.2 do Loop |
|
|
|
The do loop has no direct Ada equivalent, though section 1.2.4.4 will show you how to synthesize |
|
one. |
|
|
|
do |
|
{ |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
} while (expression) |
|
|
|
-- no direct Ada equivalent. |
|
|
|
1.2.4.3 for Loop |
|
|
|
The for loop is another favourite, Ada has no direct equivalent to the C/C++ for loop (the most |
|
frighteningly overloaded statement in almost any language) but does allow you to iterate over a range, |
|
allowing you access to the most common usage of the for loop, iterating over an array. |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
for (init-statement ; expression-1 ; loop-statement) |
|
{ |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
for ident in range loop |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
However Ada adds some nice touches to this simple statement. |
|
|
|
Firstly, the variable ident is actually declared by its appearance in the loop, it is a new variable which |
|
exists for the scope of the loop only and takes the correct type according to the specified range. |
|
|
|
Secondly you will have noticed that to loop for 1 to 10 you can write the following Ada code: |
|
|
|
for i in 1 .. 10 loop |
|
|
|
null; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
What if you want to loop from 10 down to 1? In Ada you cannot specify a range of 10 .. |
|
1 as |
|
this is defined as a ’null range’. Passing a null range to a for loop causes it to exit immediatly. The |
|
code to iterate over a null range such as this is: |
|
|
|
for i in reverse 1 .. 10 loop |
|
|
|
null; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
1.2.4.4 break and continue |
|
|
|
In C and C++ we have two useful statements break and continue which may be used to add fine |
|
control to loops. Consider the following C code: |
|
|
|
while (expression) { |
|
if (expression1) { |
|
|
|
continue; |
|
|
|
} |
|
if (expression2) { |
|
|
|
break; |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
This code shows how break and continue are used, you have a loop which takes an expression to |
|
determine general termination procedure. Now let us assume that during execution of the loop you |
|
decide that you have completed what you wanted to do and may leave the loop early, the break forces |
|
a ’jump’ to the next statement after the closing brace of the loop. A continue is similar but it takes |
|
you to the first statement after the opening brace of the loop, in effect it allows you to reevaluate the |
|
loop. |
|
|
|
In Ada there is no continue, and break is now exit. |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
while expression loop |
|
if expression2 then |
|
|
|
exit; |
|
end if; |
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
The Ada exit statement however can combine the expression used to decide that it is required, and so |
|
the code below is often found. |
|
|
|
while expression loop |
|
|
|
exit when expression2; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
This leads us onto the do loop, which can now be coded as: |
|
|
|
loop |
|
|
|
statement |
|
exit when expression; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
Another useful feature which C and C++ lack is the ability to ’break’ out of nested loops, consider |
|
|
|
while ((!feof(file_handle) && (!percent_found)) { |
|
|
|
for (char_index = 0; buffer[char_index] != ’\n’; char_index++) { |
|
|
|
if (buffer[char_index] == ’%’) { |
|
|
|
percent_found = 1; |
|
break; |
|
|
|
} |
|
// some other code, including get next line. |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
This sort of code is quite common, an inner loop spots the termination condition and has to signal this |
|
back to the outer loop. Now consider |
|
|
|
Main_Loop: |
|
while not End_Of_File(File_Handle) loop |
|
|
|
for Char_Index in Buffer’Range loop |
|
|
|
exit when Buffer(Char_Index) = NEW_LINE; |
|
exit Main_Loop when Buffer(Char_Index) = PERCENT; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end loop Main_Loop; |
|
|
|
1.2.5 |
|
|
|
return {6.5} |
|
|
|
Here again a direct Ada equivalent, you want to return a value, then return a value, |
|
|
|
return value; // C++ return |
|
|
|
return value; -- Ada return |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
1.2.6 |
|
|
|
labels and goto {5.8} |
|
|
|
Don’t do it !!, OK one day you might need to, so heres how. Declare a label and jump to it. |
|
|
|
label: |
|
|
|
goto label; |
|
|
|
< <label> > |
|
|
|
goto label; |
|
|
|
1.2.7 |
|
|
|
exception handling {11.2} |
|
|
|
Ada and the newer verions of C++ support exception handling for critical errors. Exception handling |
|
consists of three components, the exception, raising the exception and handling the exception. |
|
|
|
In C++ there is no exception type, when you raise an exception you pass out any sort of type, and |
|
selection of the exception is done on its type. |
|
In Ada as seen above there is a ’psuedo-type’ for |
|
exceptions and they are then selected by name. |
|
|
|
Firstly lets see how you catch an exception, the code below shows the basic structure used to protect |
|
statement1, and execute statement2 on detection of the specified exception. |
|
|
|
try { |
|
|
|
statement1 |
|
|
|
} catch (declaration) { |
|
|
|
statement2 |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
statement1 |
|
|
|
exception |
|
|
|
when ident => statement2 |
|
when others => statement2 |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
Let us now consider an example, we will call a function which we know may raise a particular |
|
exception, but it may raise some we don’t know about, so we must pass anything else back up to |
|
whoever called us. |
|
|
|
try { |
|
|
|
function_call(); |
|
|
|
} catch (const char* string_exception) { |
|
|
|
if (!strcmp(string_exception, "the_one_we_want")) { |
|
|
|
handle_it(); |
|
|
|
} else { |
|
throw; |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
} catch (...) { |
|
|
|
throw; |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
function_call; |
|
|
|
exception |
|
|
|
when the_one_we_want => handle_it; |
|
when others => raise; |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
This shows how much safer the Ada version is, we know exactly what we are waiting for and can |
|
immediately process it. In the C++ case all we know is that an exception of type ’const char*’ has |
|
been raised, we must then check it still further before we can handle it. |
|
|
|
You will also notice the similarity between the Ada exception catching code and the Ada case state- |
|
ment, this also extends to the fact that the when statement can catch multiple exceptions. Ranges of |
|
exceptions are not possible, however you can or exceptions, to get: |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
function_call; |
|
|
|
exception |
|
|
|
when the_one_we_want | |
|
|
|
another_possibility => handle_it; |
|
|
|
when others => raise; |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
This also shows the basic form for raising an exception, the throw statement in C++ and the raise |
|
statement in Ada. Both normally raise a given exception, but both when invoked with no exception |
|
reraise the last one. To raise the exception above consider: |
|
|
|
throw (const char*)"the_one_we_want"; |
|
|
|
raise the_one_we_want; |
|
|
|
1.2.8 |
|
|
|
sub-programs |
|
|
|
The following piece of code shows how C/C++ and Ada both declare and define a function. Decla- |
|
ration is the process of telling everyone that the function exists and what its type and parameters are. |
|
The definitions are where you actually write out the function itself. (In Ada terms the function spec |
|
and function body). |
|
|
|
return_type func_name(parameters); |
|
return_type func_name(parameters) |
|
{ |
|
|
|
declarations |
|
statement |
|
|
|
} |
|
|
|
function func_name(parameters) return return_type; |
|
function func_name(parameters) return return_type is |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
declarations |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
statement |
|
|
|
end func_name; |
|
|
|
Let us now consider a special kind of function, one which does not return a value. In C/C++ this is |
|
represented as a return type of void, in Ada this is called a procedure. |
|
|
|
void func_name(parameters); |
|
procedure func_name(parameters); |
|
|
|
Next we must consider how we pass arguments to functions. |
|
|
|
void func1(int |
|
void func2(int* by_address); |
|
void func3(int& by_reference); // C++ only. |
|
|
|
by_value); |
|
|
|
These type of parameters are I hope well understood by C and C++ programmers, their direct Ada |
|
equivalents are: |
|
|
|
is new Integer; |
|
|
|
type int |
|
type int_star is access int; |
|
procedure func1(by_value |
|
procedure func2(by_address |
|
procedure func3(by_reference : in out int); |
|
|
|
: in |
|
: in out int_star); |
|
|
|
int); |
|
|
|
Finally a procedure or function which takes no parameters can be written in two ways in C/C++, |
|
though only one is Ada. |
|
|
|
void func_name(); |
|
void func_name(void); |
|
int func_name(void); |
|
|
|
procedure func_name; |
|
function |
|
|
|
func_name return Integer; |
|
|
|
Ada also provides two features which will be understood by C++ programmers, possibly not by C |
|
programmers, and a third I don’t know how C does without: |
|
|
|
Overloading Ada allows more than one function/procedure with the same name as long as they can |
|
be uniquely identified by their signature (a combination of their parameter and return types). |
|
|
|
function Day return All_Days; |
|
function Day(a_date : in Date_Type) return All_Days; |
|
|
|
The first returns you the day of week, of today, the second the day of week from a given date. They |
|
are both allowed, and both visible. The compiler decides which one to use by looking at the types |
|
given to it when you call it. |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
1.2. C/C++ STATEMENTS TO ADA. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Operator overloading {6.6} As in C++ you can redefine the standard operators in Ada, unlike C++ |
|
you can do this outside a class, and for any operator, with any types. The syntax for this is to replace |
|
the name of the function (operators are always functions) with the operator name in quotes, ie: |
|
|
|
function "+"(Left, Right : in Integer) return Integer; |
|
|
|
Available operators are: |
|
|
|
= |
|
+ |
|
* |
|
|
|
<= |
|
& |
|
|
|
< |
|
- |
|
/ |
|
and or xor |
|
|
|
> |
|
|
|
>= |
|
abs not |
|
** |
|
|
|
mod rem |
|
|
|
Parameter passing modes C++ allows three parameter passing modes, by value, by pointer and by |
|
reference (the default mode for Ada). |
|
|
|
void func(int by_value, int* by_pointer, int& by_reference); |
|
|
|
Ada provides two optional keywords to specify how parameters are passed, in and out. These are |
|
used like this: |
|
|
|
Integer); |
|
procedure proc(Parameter : in |
|
procedure proc(Parameter : |
|
out Integer); |
|
procedure proc(Parameter : in out Integer); |
|
Integer); |
|
procedure proc(Parameter : |
|
|
|
If these keywords are used then the compiler can protect you even more, so if you have an out |
|
parameter it will warn you if you use it before it has been set, also it will warn you if you assign to an |
|
in parameter. |
|
|
|
Note that you cannot mark parameters with out in functions as functions are used to return values, |
|
such side affects are disallowed. |
|
|
|
Default parameters {6.4.1} Ada (and C++) allow you to declare default values for parameters, this |
|
means that when you call the function you can leave such a parameter off the call as the compiler |
|
knows what value to use. |
|
|
|
procedure Create |
|
|
|
(File : in out File_Type; |
|
|
|
Mode : in |
|
Name : in |
|
Form : in |
|
|
|
File_Mode := Inout_File; |
|
String := ""; |
|
String := ""); |
|
|
|
This example is to be found in each of the Ada file based IO packages, it opens a file, given the |
|
file ’handle’ the mode, name of the file and a system independant ’form’ for the file. You can see |
|
that the simplest invokation of Create is Create(File_Handle); which simply provides the |
|
handle and all other parameters are defaulted (In the Ada library a file name of "" implies opening |
|
a temporary file). Now suppose that we wish to provide the name of the file also, we would have |
|
to write Create(File_Handle, Inout_File, "text.file"); wouldn’t we? The Ada |
|
answer is no. By using designators as has been demonstrated above we could use the form: |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
Create(File => File_Handle, |
|
|
|
Name => "text.file"); |
|
|
|
and we can leave the mode to pick up its default. This skipping of parameters is a uniquely Ada |
|
feature. |
|
|
|
Nested procedures Simple, you can define any number of procedures within the definition of an- |
|
other as long as they appear before the begin. |
|
|
|
procedure Sort(Sort_This : in out An_Array) is |
|
|
|
procedure Swap(Item_1, Item_2 : in out Array_Type) is |
|
begin |
|
end Swap; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
end Sort; |
|
|
|
Notes: you can get in a mess with both C++ and Ada when mixing overloading and defaults. For |
|
example: |
|
|
|
procedure increment(A_Value : A_Type); |
|
procedure increment |
|
|
|
(A_Value : in out A_Type; |
|
|
|
By |
|
|
|
: in |
|
|
|
Integer := 1); |
|
|
|
If we call increment with one parameter which of the two above is called? Now the compiler will |
|
show such things up, but it does mean you have to think carefully and make sure you use defaults |
|
carefully. |
|
|
|
1.3 Ada Safety. |
|
|
|
Ada is probably best known for its role in safetly critical systems. Ada is probably best known for its |
|
role in safety critical systems. Boeing standardized on Ada as the language for the new 777, and I can |
|
assure you such a decision is not taken lightly. |
|
|
|
Ada is also commonly assumed to be a military language, with the US Department of Defense its |
|
prime advocate, this is not the case, a number of commercial and government developments have |
|
now been implemented in Ada. Ada is an excellent choice if you wish to spend your development |
|
time solving your customers problems, not hunting bugs in C/C++ which an Ada compiler would not |
|
have allowed. |
|
|
|
1.3.1 Static provability. |
|
|
|
Ada-83 did not provide Object Oriented features, and did not even provide procedural types as such |
|
constructs meant that you could only follow the path of the code at runtime. Ada-83 was statically |
|
provable, you could follow the route the code would take given certain inputs from the source code |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
alone. This has been a great benefit and has provided Ada programmers with a great deal of confidence |
|
in the code they wrote. |
|
|
|
Ada-95 has introduced these new features, Object Oriented programming through tagged types and |
|
procedural types which make it more difficult to statically prove an Ada-95 program, but the language |
|
designers decided that such features merited their inclusion in the language to further another goal, |
|
that of high reuse. |
|
|
|
1.3.2 Predefined exceptions and pragmas. |
|
|
|
A number of exceptions can be raised by the standard library and/or the runtime environment. You |
|
may expect to come accross at least one while you are learning Ada (and more once you know it ;-). |
|
|
|
Constraint_Error |
|
|
|
This exception is raised when a constraint is exceeded, such constraints include |
|
|
|
• Numeric under/overflow. |
|
|
|
• Range bounds exceeded. |
|
|
|
• Reference to invalid record component. |
|
|
|
• Dereference of null access type. |
|
|
|
Program_Error |
|
|
|
This is raised by the run-time to mark an erroneous program event, such as calling a procedure |
|
before package initialisation, or bad instantiation of a generic package. |
|
|
|
Storage_Error |
|
|
|
This exception is raised when a call to new could not be satisfied due to lack of memory. |
|
|
|
Tasking_Error |
|
|
|
This is raised when problems occur during tasking rendezvous (see section 7.2 on page 58). |
|
|
|
This is not a list of the predefined pragmas {L} what I have provided is the set of options to the pragma |
|
Supress which can be used to stop certain run-time checks taking place. The pragma works from |
|
that point to the end of the innermost enclosing scope, or the end of the scope of the named object |
|
(see below). |
|
|
|
Access_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on dereference of a null access value. |
|
|
|
Accessibility_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Program_Error on access to inaccessible object or subprogram. |
|
|
|
Discriminant_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on access to incorrect component in a discriminant record. |
|
|
|
Division_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on divide by zero. |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
|
Elaboration_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Program_Error on unelaborated package or subprogram body. |
|
|
|
Index_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on out of range array index. |
|
|
|
Length_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on array length violation. |
|
|
|
Overflow_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on overflow from numeric operation. |
|
|
|
Range_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error on out of range scalar value. |
|
|
|
Storage_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Storage_Error if not enough storage to satisfy a new call. |
|
|
|
Tag_Check |
|
|
|
Raises Constraint_Error if object has an invalid tag for operation. |
|
|
|
pragma Suppress(Access_Check); |
|
pragma Suppress(Access_Check, On => My_Type_Ptr); |
|
|
|
The first use of the pragma above turns off checking for null access values throughout the code (for |
|
the lifetime of the suppress), whereas the second only suppresses the check for the named data item. |
|
|
|
The point of this section is that by default all of these checks are enabled, and so any such errors will |
|
be trapped. |
|
|
|
1.3.3 Unchecked programming. |
|
|
|
You can subvert some of Adas type consistency by the use of unchecked programming. This is |
|
basically a set of procedures which do unsafe operations. These are: |
|
|
|
Unchecked_Conversion |
|
|
|
This generic function is defined as: |
|
|
|
generic |
|
type Source (<>) is limited private; |
|
type Target (<>) is limited private; |
|
function Ada.Unchecked_Conversion (Source_Object : Source) |
|
|
|
return Target; |
|
|
|
and should be instantiated like the example below (taken from one of the Ada-95 standard |
|
library packages Ada.Interfaces.C). |
|
|
|
function Character_To_char is new |
|
|
|
Unchecked_Conversion (Character, char); |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
1.3. ADA SAFETY. |
|
|
|
1. ADA BASICS. |
|
|
|
and can then be used to convert and Ada character to a C char, thus |
|
|
|
A_Char : Interfaces.C.char := Character_To_char(’a’); |
|
|
|
Unchecked_Deallocation |
|
|
|
This generic function is defined as: |
|
|
|
generic |
|
type Object (<>) is limited private; |
|
type Name is access Object; |
|
procedure Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation (X : in out Name); |
|
|
|
this function, instantiated with two parameters, only requires one for operation, |
|
|
|
type My_Type is new Integer; |
|
type My_Ptr |
|
procedure Free is new Unchecked_Deallocation (My_Type, My_Ptr); |
|
Thing : My_Ptr := new My_Type; |
|
Free(Thing); |
|
|
|
is access My_Type; |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Ada Packages. {7} |
|
|
|
Ada has one feature which many C/C++ programmers like to think they have an equivalent too - the |
|
package - they do not. |
|
|
|
It is worth first looking at the role of header files in C/C++. Header files are simply program text |
|
which by virtue of the preprocessor are inserted into the compilers input stream. The #include |
|
directive knows nothing about what it is including and can lead to all sorts of problems, such as |
|
people who #include "thing.c". This sharing of code by the preprocessor lead to the #ifdef |
|
construct as you would have different interfaces for different people. The other problem is that C/C++ |
|
compilations can sometime take forever because a included b included c . . . or the near fatal a |
|
included a included a . . . |
|
|
|
Stroustrup has tried ref [9] (in vain, as far as I can see) to convince C++ programmers to remove |
|
dependance on the preprocessor but all the drawbacks are still there. |
|
|
|
Any Ada package on the other hand consists of two parts, the specification (header) and body (code). |
|
The specification however is a completely stand alone entity which can be compiled on its own and |
|
so must include specifications from other packages to do so. An Ada package body at compile time |
|
must refer to its package specification to ensure legal declarations, but in many Ada environments it |
|
would look up a compiled version of the specification. |
|
|
|
The specification contains an explicit list of the visible components of a package and so there can be |
|
no internal knowledge exploited as is often the case in C code, ie module a contains a functions aa() |
|
but does not export it through a header file, module b knows how a is coded and so uses the extern |
|
keyword to declare knowledge of it, and use it. C/C++ programmers therefore have to mark private |
|
functions and data as static. |
|
|
|
2.1 What a package looks like |
|
|
|
Below is the skeleton of a package, spec and body. |
|
|
|
--file example.ads, the package specification. |
|
package example is |
|
: |
|
: |
|
end example; |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
2.2. INCLUDE A PACKAGE IN ANOTHER |
|
|
|
2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
|
--file example.adb, the package body. |
|
package body example is |
|
: |
|
: |
|
end example; |
|
|
|
2.2 Include a package in another |
|
|
|
Whereas a C file includes a header by simply inserting the text of the header into the current com- |
|
pilation stream with #include "example.h", the Ada package specification has a two stage |
|
process. |
|
|
|
Working with the example package above let us assume that we need to include another package, say |
|
My_Specs into this package so that it may be used. Firstly where do you insert it? Like C, package |
|
specifications can be inserted into either a specification or body depending on who is the client. Like |
|
a C header/code relationship any package included in the specification of package A is visible to the |
|
body of A, but not to clients of A. Each package is a seperate entity. |
|
|
|
-- Specification for package example |
|
with Project_Specs; |
|
package example is |
|
|
|
type My_Type is new Project_Spec.Their_Type; |
|
|
|
end example; |
|
|
|
-- Body for package example |
|
with My_Specs; |
|
package body example is |
|
|
|
type New_Type_1 is new My_Specs.Type_1; |
|
type New_Type_2 is new Project_Specs.Type_1; |
|
|
|
end example; |
|
|
|
You can see here the basic visibility rules, the specification has to include Project_Specs so that |
|
it can declare My_Type. The body automatically inherits any packages included in its spec, so that |
|
you can see that although the body does not include Project_Specs that package is used in the |
|
declaration of New_Type_1. The body also includes another package My_Specs to declare the |
|
new type New_Type_2, the specification is unaware of this include and so cannot use My_Specs |
|
to declare new types. In a similar way an ordinary client of the package example cannot use the |
|
inclusion of Project_Specs, they would have to include it themselves. |
|
|
|
To use an item, say a the type Type_1 you must name it My_Specs.Type_1, in effect you have |
|
included the package name, not its contents. To get the same effect as the C #include you must |
|
also add another statement to make: |
|
|
|
with My_Specs; use My_Specs |
|
package body example is |
|
: |
|
: |
|
end example; |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
2.3. PACKAGE DATA HIDING {7.3} |
|
|
|
2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
|
It is usual in Ada to put the with and the use on the same line, for clarity. There is much more to be |
|
said about Ada packages, but that should be enough to start with. There is a special form of the use |
|
statement which can simply include an element (types only) from a package, consider: |
|
|
|
use type Ada.Calendar.Time; |
|
|
|
2.3 Package data hiding {7.3} |
|
|
|
Data encapulation requires, for any level of safe reuse, a level of hiding. That is to say we need to |
|
defer the declaration of some data to a future point so that any client cannot depend on the structure |
|
of the data and allows the provider the ability to change that structure if the need arises. |
|
|
|
In C this is done by presenting the ’private type’ as a void* which means that you cannot know |
|
anything about it, but implies that no one can do any form of type checking on it. In C++ we can |
|
forward declare classes and so provide an anonymous class type. |
|
|
|
/* C code */ |
|
typedef void* list; |
|
list create(void); |
|
// C++ |
|
class Our_List { |
|
public: |
|
|
|
Our_List(void); |
|
|
|
private: |
|
|
|
class List_Rep; |
|
List_Rep* Representation; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
|
|
You can see that as a C++ programmer you have the advantage that when writing the implementa- |
|
tion of Our_List and its internal representation List_Rep you have all the advantages of type |
|
checking, but the client still knows absolutely nothing about how the list is structured. |
|
|
|
In Ada this concept is formalised into the ’private part’ of a package. This private part is used to |
|
define items which are forward declared as private. |
|
|
|
package Our_List is |
|
type List_Rep is private; |
|
function Create return List_Rep; |
|
private |
|
|
|
type List_Rep is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
-- some data |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
end Our_List; |
|
|
|
As you can see the way the Ada private part is usually used the representation of List_Rep is |
|
exposed, but because it is a private type the only operations that the client may use are = and /=, all |
|
other operations must be provided by functions and procedures in the package. |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
2.4. HIERARCHICAL PACKAGES. |
|
|
|
2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
|
Note: we can even restrict use of = and /= by declaring the type as limited private when you |
|
wish to have no predefined operators available. |
|
|
|
You may not in the public part of the package specification declare variables of the private type as the |
|
representation is not yet known, we can declare constants of the type, but you must declare them in |
|
both places, forward reference them in the public part with no value, and then again in the private part |
|
to provide a value: |
|
|
|
package Example is |
|
|
|
type A is private; |
|
B : constant A; |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
type A is new Integer; |
|
B : constant A := 0; |
|
|
|
end Example; |
|
|
|
To get exactly the same result as the C++ code above then you must go one step further, you must not |
|
expose the representation of List_Rep, and so you might use: |
|
|
|
package Our_List is |
|
|
|
type List_Access is limited private; |
|
function Create return List_Access; |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
type List_Rep; -- opaque type |
|
type List_Access is access List_Rep; |
|
|
|
end Our_List; |
|
|
|
We now pass back to the client an access type, which points to a ’deferred incomplete type’ whose |
|
representation is only required to be exposed in the package body. |
|
|
|
2.4 Hierarchical packages. |
|
|
|
Ada allows the nesting of packages within each other, this can be useful for a number of reasons. |
|
With Ada-83 this was possible by nesting package specs and bodies physically, thus: |
|
|
|
package Outer is |
|
|
|
package Inner_1 is |
|
end Inner_1; |
|
package Inner_2 is |
|
end Inner_2; |
|
|
|
private |
|
end Outer; |
|
|
|
Ada-95 has added to this the possibility to define child packages outside the physical scope of a |
|
package, thus: |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
2.5. RENAMING IDENTIFIERS. |
|
|
|
2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
|
package Outer is |
|
package Inner_1 is |
|
end Inner_1; |
|
end Outer; |
|
package Outer.Inner_2 is |
|
end Outer.Inner_2; |
|
|
|
As you can see Inner_2 is still a child of outer but can be created at some later date, by a different |
|
team. |
|
|
|
2.5 Renaming identifiers. |
|
|
|
This is not a package specific topic, and it is only introduced here as the using of packages is the most |
|
common place to find a renames clause. |
|
|
|
Consider: |
|
|
|
with Outer; |
|
with Outer.Inner_1; |
|
package New_Package is |
|
|
|
OI_1 renames Outer.Inner_1; |
|
type New_type is new OI_1.A_Type; |
|
|
|
end New_Package; |
|
|
|
The use of OI_1 not only saves us a lot of typing, but if outer were the package Sorting_Algorithms, |
|
and Inner_1 was Insertion_Sort, then we could have |
|
Sort renames Sorting_Algorithms.Insertion_Sort |
|
and then at some later date if you decide that a quick sort is more approriate then you simply change |
|
the renames clause, and the rest of the package spec stays exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Similarly if you want to include 2 functions from two different package with the same name then, |
|
rather than relying on overloading, or to clarify your code text you could: |
|
|
|
with Package1; |
|
function Function1 return Integer renames Package1.Function; |
|
with Package2; |
|
function Function2 return Integer renames Package2.Function; |
|
|
|
Another example of a renames clause is where you are using some complex structure and you want to |
|
in effect use a synonym for it during some processing. In the example below we have a device handler |
|
structure which contains some procedure types which we need to execute in turn. The first example |
|
contains a lot of text which we don’t really care about, so the second removes most of it, thus leaving |
|
bare the real work we are attempting to do. |
|
|
|
for device in Device_Map loop |
|
|
|
Device_Map(device).Device_Handler.Request_Device; |
|
Device_Map(device).Device_Handler. |
|
|
|
Process_Function(Process_This_Request); |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
2.5. RENAMING IDENTIFIERS. |
|
|
|
2. ADA PACKAGES. {7} |
|
|
|
Device_Map(device).Device_Handler.Relinquish_Device; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
for device in Device_Map loop |
|
|
|
declare |
|
|
|
Device_Handler : Device_Type renames |
|
Device_Map(device).Device_Handler; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Device_Handler.Request_Device; |
|
Device_Handler.Process_Function(Process_This_Request); |
|
Device_Handler.Relinquish_Device; |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
Ada-95 Object Oriented Programming. |
|
|
|
C++ extends C with the concept of a class. A class is an extension of the existing struct construct |
|
which we have reviewed in section 1.1.7 on page 15. The difference with a class is that a class not |
|
only contains data (member attributes) but code as well (member functions). A class might look like: |
|
|
|
class A_Device { |
|
public: |
|
|
|
A_Device(char*, int, int); |
|
char* Name(void); |
|
int |
|
int |
|
|
|
Major(void); |
|
Minor(void); |
|
|
|
protected: |
|
|
|
char* name; |
|
int |
|
int |
|
|
|
major; |
|
minor; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
|
|
This defines a class called A_Device, which encapsulates a Unix-like /dev entry. Such an entry has a |
|
name and a major and minor number, the actual data items are protected so a client cannot alter them, |
|
but the client can see them by calling the public interface functions. |
|
|
|
The code above also introduces a constructor, a function with the same name as the class which is |
|
called whenever the class is created. In C++ these may be overloaded and are called either by the |
|
new operator, or in local variable declarations as below. |
|
|
|
A_Device lp1("lp1", 10, 1); |
|
A_Device* lp1; |
|
|
|
lp1 = new A_Device("lp1", 10, 1); |
|
|
|
Creates a new device object called lp1 and sets up the name and major/minor numbers. |
|
|
|
Ada has also extended its equivalent of a struct, the record but does not directly attach the member |
|
functions to it. First the Ada equivalent of the above class is |
|
|
|
package Devices is |
|
|
|
type Device is tagged private; |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
3.1. THE TAGGED TYPE. |
|
|
|
3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
|
type Device_Type is access Device; |
|
function Create(Name |
|
|
|
: String; |
|
|
|
Major : Integer; |
|
Minor : Integer) |
|
|
|
function Name(this : Device_Type) |
|
function Major(this : Device_Type) return Integer; |
|
function Minor(this : Device_Type) return Integer; |
|
|
|
return Device_Type; |
|
return String; |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
type Device is tagged |
|
|
|
record |
|
Name |
|
Major : Integer; |
|
Minor : Integer; |
|
|
|
: String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
end Devices; |
|
|
|
and the equivalent declaration of an object would be: |
|
|
|
lp1 : Devices.Device_Type := Devices.Create("lp1", 10, 1); |
|
|
|
3.1 The tagged type. |
|
|
|
The addition of the keyword tagged to the definition of the type Device makes it a class in C++ |
|
terms. The tagged type is simply an extension of the Ada-83 record type but (in the same way C++’s |
|
class is an extension of C’s struct) which includes a ’tag’ which can identify not only its own |
|
type but its place in the type hierarchy. |
|
|
|
The tag can be accessed by the attribute ’Tag but should only be used for comparison, ie |
|
|
|
dev1, dev2 : Device; |
|
if dev1’Tag = dev2’Tag then |
|
|
|
this can identify the isa relationship between two objects. |
|
|
|
Another important attribute ’Class exists which is used in type declarations to denote the class-wide |
|
type, the inheritence tree rooted at that type, ie |
|
|
|
type Device_Class is Device’Class; |
|
-- or more normally |
|
type Device_Class is access Device’Class; |
|
|
|
The second type denotes a pointer to objects of type Device and any objects whos type has been |
|
inherited from Device. |
|
|
|
3.2 Class member attributes. |
|
|
|
Member attributes in C++ directly map onto data members of the tagged type. So the char* name |
|
directly maps into Name : String. |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
3.3. CLASS MEMBER FUNCTIONS. |
|
|
|
3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
|
3.3 Class member functions. |
|
|
|
Non-virtual, non-const, non-static member functions map onto subprograms, within the same package |
|
as the tagged type, whos first parameter is of that tagged type or an access to the tagged type, or who |
|
returns such a type. |
|
|
|
3.4 Virtual member functions. |
|
|
|
Virtual member functions map onto subprograms, within the same package as the tagged type, whos |
|
first parameter is of the class-wide type, or an access to the class-wide type, or who returns such a |
|
type. |
|
|
|
A pure virtual function maps onto a virtual member function with the keywords is abstract |
|
before the semicolon. When any pure virtual member functions exist the tagged type they refer to |
|
must also be identified as abstract. Also, if an abstract tagged type has been introduced which has no |
|
data, then the following shorthand can be used: |
|
|
|
type Root_Type is abstract tagged null record; |
|
|
|
3.5 Static members. |
|
|
|
Static members map onto subprograms within the same package as the tagged type. These are no |
|
different from normal Ada-83 subprograms, it is up to the programmer when applying coding rules |
|
to identify only member functions or static functions in a package which includes a tagged type. |
|
|
|
3.6 Constructors/Destructors for Ada. |
|
|
|
As you can see from the example above there is no constructors and destructors in Ada. In the example |
|
above we have synthesised this with the Create function which creates a new object and returns it. |
|
If you intend to use this method then the most important thing to remember is to use the same name |
|
throughout, Create Copy Destroy etc are all useful conventions. |
|
|
|
Ada does provide a library package Ada.Finalization which can provide constructor/destructor |
|
like facilities for tagged types. |
|
|
|
Note: See [4]. |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
Inheritance, single and multiple. |
|
|
|
The most common attribute sited as the mark of a true object oriented language is support for inheri- |
|
tance. Ada-95 adds this as tagged type extension. |
|
|
|
For example, let us now inherit the device type above to make a tape device, firstly in C++ |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
3.8. PUBLIC/PROTECTED/PRIVATE. |
|
|
|
3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
|
class A_Tape : public A_Device { |
|
public: |
|
|
|
A_Tape(char*, int, int); |
|
int Block_Size(void); |
|
|
|
protected: |
|
|
|
int block_size; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
|
|
Now let us look at the example in Ada. |
|
|
|
package Device.Tapes is |
|
|
|
type Tape is new device with private; |
|
type Tape_Type is access Tape; |
|
function Create(Name : String; |
|
|
|
Major : Integer; |
|
Minor : Integer) return Tape_Type; |
|
|
|
function Block_Size(this : Tape_Type) return Integer; |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
type Tape is new Device with |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Block_Size : Integer; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
end Device.Tapes; |
|
|
|
Ada does not directly support multiple inheritance, ref [5] has an example of how to synthesise mulit- |
|
ple inheritance. |
|
|
|
3.8 public/protected/private. |
|
|
|
In the example at the top of this section we provided the Device comparison. |
|
In this example |
|
the C++ class provided a public interface and a protected one, the Ada equivalent then provided an |
|
interface in the public part and the tagged type declaration in the private part. Because of the rules for |
|
child packages (see 2.4 on page 40) a child of the Devices package can see the private part and so |
|
can use the definition of the Device tagged type. |
|
|
|
Top mimic C++ private interfaces you can choose to use the method above, which in effect makes |
|
them protected, or you can make them really private by using opaque types (see 2.3 on page 39). |
|
|
|
3.9 A more complete example. |
|
|
|
class base_device { |
|
public: |
|
|
|
major(void) const; |
|
minor(void) const; |
|
|
|
char* name(void) const; |
|
int |
|
int |
|
enum { block, character, special } io_type; |
|
io_type type(void) const; |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
3.9. A MORE COMPLETE EXAMPLE. |
|
|
|
3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
|
char read(void) = 0; |
|
void write(char) = 0; |
|
static char* type_name(void); |
|
|
|
protected: |
|
|
|
_major; |
|
_minor; |
|
|
|
char* _name; |
|
int |
|
int |
|
static const io_type _type; |
|
base_device(void); |
|
|
|
private: |
|
|
|
int _device_count; |
|
|
|
}; |
|
|
|
The class above shows off a number of C++ features, |
|
|
|
• Some const member functions. |
|
|
|
• Some pure virtual member functions. |
|
|
|
• A Static member function. |
|
|
|
• Some protected member attributes. |
|
|
|
• A Static const member attribute. |
|
|
|
• A protected constructor. |
|
|
|
• A private member attribute. |
|
|
|
All of these, including the reasons why they might be used should be familiar to you, below is an |
|
equivalent specification in Ada. |
|
|
|
package Devices is |
|
|
|
is access Device; |
|
|
|
type Device is abstract tagged limited private; |
|
type Device_Type |
|
type Device_Class is access Device’Class; |
|
type IO_Type is (Block, Char, Special); |
|
: in Device_Type) return String; |
|
function Name(this |
|
: in Device_Type) return Integer; |
|
function Major(this |
|
function Minor(this |
|
: in Device_Type) return Integer; |
|
function IOType(this : in Device_Type) return IO_Type; |
|
function Read(this |
|
procedure Write(this : Device_Class; Output : Character) is abstract; |
|
function Type_Name return String; |
|
|
|
return Character is abstract; |
|
|
|
: Device_Class) |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
type Device_Count; |
|
type Device_Private is access Device_Count; |
|
type Device is abstract tagged limited |
|
record |
|
Name |
|
|
|
: String(1 .. 20); |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
3.9. A MORE COMPLETE EXAMPLE. |
|
|
|
3. ADA-95 OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING. |
|
|
|
Major : Integer; |
|
Minor : Integer; |
|
Count : Device_Private; |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
Const_IO_Type |
|
: constant IO_Type := special; |
|
Const_Type_Name : constant String := "Device"; |
|
|
|
end Devices; |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Generics |
|
|
|
One of Ada’s strongest claims is the ability to code for reuse. C++ also claims reuse as one of its |
|
goals through Object Oriented Programming. Ada-83 allowed you to manage the data encapsula- |
|
tion and layering through the package mechanism and Ada-95 does include proper facilities for OO |
|
Programming. Where Ada led however, and C++ is following is the area of generic, or template |
|
programming. |
|
|
|
4.1 A generic procedure {12.6} |
|
|
|
For example. A sort algorithm is well understood, and we may like to code a sort for an array of int’s |
|
in C, we would have a function like: |
|
|
|
void sort(int *array, int num_elements); |
|
|
|
however when you come to sort an array of structures you either have to rewrite the function, or you |
|
end up with a generic sort function which looks like this: |
|
|
|
void sort(void *array, int element_size, int element_count, |
|
int (*compare)(void* el1, void *el2)); |
|
|
|
This takes a bland address for the start of the array user supplied parameters for the size of each |
|
element and the number of elements and a function which compares two elements. C does not have |
|
strong typing, but you have just stripped away any help the compiler might be able to give you by |
|
using void*. |
|
|
|
Now let us consider an Ada generic version of the sort function: |
|
|
|
generic |
|
|
|
type index_type is (<>); |
|
type element_type is private; |
|
type element_array is array (index_type range <>) of element_type; |
|
with function "<" (el1, el2 : element_type) return Boolean; |
|
|
|
procedure Sort(the_array : in out element_array); |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
4.2. GENERIC PACKAGES {12.7} |
|
|
|
4. GENERICS |
|
|
|
This shows us quite a few features of Ada generics and is a nice place to start, for example note that |
|
we have specified a lot of detail about the thing we are going to sort, it is an array, for which we don’t |
|
know the bounds so it is specified as range <>. We also can’t expect that the range is an integer |
|
range and so we must also make the range type a parameter, index_type. Then we come onto the |
|
element type, this is simply specified as private, so all we know is that we can test equality and assign |
|
one to another. Now that we have specified exactly what it is we are going to sort we must ask for a |
|
function to compare two elements, similar to C we must ask the user to supply a function, however |
|
in this case we can ask for an operator function and notice that we use the keyword with before the |
|
function. |
|
|
|
I think that you should be able to see the difference between the Ada code and C code as far as |
|
readability (and therefore maintainability) are concerned and why, therefore, Ada promotes the reuse |
|
philosophy. |
|
|
|
Now let’s use our generic to sort some of MyTypes. |
|
|
|
MyArray : array (Integer 0 .. 100) of MyType; |
|
function LessThan(el1, el2 : MyType) return Boolean; |
|
procedure SortMyType is new Sort(Integer, MyType, MyArray, LessThan); |
|
SortMyType(MyArray); |
|
|
|
The first two lines simply declare the array we are going to sort and a little function which we use to |
|
compare two elements (note: no self respecting Ada programmer would define a function LessThan |
|
when they can use "<", this is simply for this example). We then go on to instantiate the generic |
|
procedure and declare that we have an array called MyArray of type MyType using an Integer |
|
range and we have a function to compare two elements. Now that the compiler has instantiated the |
|
generic we can simply call it using the new name. |
|
|
|
Note: The Ada compiler instantiates the generic and will ensure type safety throughout. |
|
|
|
4.2 Generic packages {12.7} |
|
|
|
Ada packages and generics where designed to go together, you will even find generic packages in the |
|
Ada standard library. For example: |
|
|
|
generic |
|
type Element_Type is private; |
|
package Ada.Direct_IO is |
|
|
|
Is the standard method for writing out binary data structures, and so one could write out to a file: |
|
|
|
type My_Struct is |
|
record |
|
... |
|
end record; |
|
package My_Struct_IO is new Ada.Direct_IO(My_Struct); |
|
use My_Struct_IO; |
|
Item : My_Struct; |
|
File : My_Struct_IO; |
|
... |
|
My_Struct_IO.Write(File, Item); |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
4.3. GENERIC TYPES AND OTHER PARAMETERS {12.4} |
|
|
|
4. GENERICS |
|
|
|
Note: see section 5.2 on page 53 for a more detailed study of these packages and how they are used. |
|
|
|
4.3 Generic types and other parameters {12.4} |
|
|
|
The types you may specify for a generic subprogram or package are as follows: |
|
|
|
type X is private |
|
|
|
We can know nothing about the type, except that we may test for equality and we may assign one to |
|
another. If we add in the keyword limited then even these abilities are unavailable. |
|
|
|
type X(<>) is private |
|
|
|
Added for Ada-95, this is similar to the parameter above except that we can define data items in the |
|
body of our package of type X, this may be illegal if the type passed is unconstrained, ie String. |
|
Ada-95 does not allow the instantiation of generics with unconstrained types, unless you use this |
|
syntax in which case you cannot declare data items of this type. |
|
|
|
type X is (<>) |
|
|
|
The type is a discrete type, Integer, Character, Enumeration etc. |
|
|
|
type X is range <> |
|
|
|
The type indicates a range, ie 0 .. |
|
|
|
100. |
|
|
|
type X is mod <> |
|
|
|
The type is a modulus type of unknown size (Added for Ada-95). |
|
|
|
type X is digits <> |
|
|
|
The type is a floating point type. |
|
|
|
type X is delta <> |
|
|
|
The type is a fixed point type. |
|
|
|
type X is tagged private |
|
|
|
The type is a tagged type, ie an Ada-95 extensible record. |
|
|
|
There is one final parameter which may be passed to a generic package, another generic package |
|
(Added for Ada-95). |
|
|
|
with Generic_Tree; |
|
generic |
|
|
|
with package A_Tree is new Generic_Tree(<>); |
|
|
|
package Tree_Walker is |
|
|
|
-- some code. |
|
end Tree_Walker; |
|
|
|
This says that we have some package called Generic_Tree which is a generic package implementing |
|
a tree of generic items. We want to be able to walk any such tree and so we say that we have a new |
|
generic package which takes a parameter which must be an instantiated package. ie |
|
|
|
package AST is new Generic_Tree(Syntax_Element); |
|
package AST_Print is new Tree_Walker(AST); |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
IO |
|
|
|
A common area for confusion is the Ada IO model, this has been shaped by the nature of the language |
|
itself and specifically the strong typing which has a direct impact on the model used to construct the |
|
IO libraries. If you stop and think about it briefly it is quite clear that with the typing rules we have |
|
introduced above you cannot write a function like the C write() which takes any old thing and puts |
|
it out to a file, how can you write a function which will take any parameter, even types which will be |
|
introduced after it has been completed. Ada-83 took a two pronged approach to IO, with the package |
|
Text_IO for simple, textual input output, and the packages Sequential_IO and Direct_IO |
|
which are generic packages for binary output of structured data. |
|
|
|
The most common problem for C and C++ programmers is the lack of the printf family of IO func- |
|
tions. There is a good reason for their absence in Ada, the use in C of variable arguments, the ’...’ at |
|
the end of the printf function spec. Ada cannot support such a construct as the type of each parameter |
|
is unknown. |
|
|
|
5.1 Ada.Text_IO |
|
|
|
The common way to do console-like IO, similar to C’s printf(), puts() and putchar() is to use the |
|
package Ada.Text_IO. This provides a set of overloaded functions called Put and Get to read |
|
and write to the screen or to simple text files. There are also functions to open and close such files, |
|
check end of file conditions and to do line and page management. |
|
|
|
A simple program below uses Text_IO to print a message to the screen, including numerics! These |
|
are achieved by using the types attribute ’Image which gives back a String representation of a value. |
|
|
|
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO; |
|
procedure Test_IO is |
|
begin |
|
|
|
Put_Line("Test Starts Here >"); |
|
Put_Line("Integer is " & Integer’Image(2)); |
|
Put_Line("Float is " & Float’Image(2.0)); |
|
Put_Line("Test Ends Here"); |
|
|
|
end Test_IO; |
|
|
|
It is also possible to use one of the generic child packages of Ada.Text_IO such as |
|
Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO which can be instantiated with a particular type to provide type safe |
|
textual IO. |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
5.2. ADA.SEQUENTIAL_IO AND ADA.DIRECT_IO |
|
|
|
5. IO |
|
|
|
with Ada.Text_IO; |
|
type My_Integer is new Integer; |
|
package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO(My_Integer); |
|
use My_Integer_IO; |
|
|
|
5.2 Ada.Sequential_IO and Ada.Direct_IO |
|
|
|
These two generic packages provide IO facilities for files which contain identical records. They can |
|
be instantiated in a similar way to the generic text IO packages above, so for example: |
|
|
|
with Ada.Direct_IO; |
|
package A_Database is |
|
type File_Header is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Magic_Number |
|
: Special_Stamp; |
|
Number_Of_Records : Record_Number; |
|
: Record_Number; |
|
First_Deleted |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
type Row is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Key : String(1 .. 80); |
|
Data : String(1 .. 255); |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
package Header_IO is new Direct_IO (File_Header); use Header_IO; |
|
package Row_IO |
|
use Record_IO; |
|
end A_Database; |
|
|
|
is new Direct_IO (Row); |
|
|
|
Now that we have some instantiated packages we can read and write records and headers to and from |
|
a file. However we want each database file to consist of a header followed by a number of rows, so |
|
we try the following |
|
|
|
declare |
|
Handle |
|
A_Header : File_Header; |
|
: Row; |
|
A_Row |
|
|
|
: Header_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Header_IO.Open(File => Handle, Name => "Test"); |
|
Header_IO.Write(Handle, A_Header); |
|
Row_IO.Write(Handle, A_Row); |
|
Header_IO.Close(Handle); |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
The obvious error is that Handle is defined as a type exported from the Header_IO package and so |
|
cannot be passed to the procedure Write from the package Row_IO. This strong typing means that |
|
both Sequential_IO and Direct_IO are designed only to work on files containg all elements |
|
of the same type. |
|
|
|
When designing a package, if you want to avoid this sort of problem (the designers of these packages |
|
did intend this restriction) then embed the generic part within an enclosing package, thus |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
5.2. ADA.SEQUENTIAL_IO AND ADA.DIRECT_IO |
|
|
|
5. IO |
|
|
|
package generic_IO is |
|
|
|
type File_Type is limited private; |
|
procedure Create(File : File_Type .... |
|
procedure Close ..... |
|
generic |
|
|
|
Element_Type is private; |
|
|
|
package Read_Write is |
|
|
|
procedure Read(File : File_Type; |
|
|
|
Element : Element_Type ... |
|
|
|
procedure Write ..... |
|
|
|
end Read_Write; |
|
|
|
end generic_IO; |
|
|
|
Which would make our database package look something like |
|
|
|
with generic_IO; |
|
package A_Database is |
|
type File_Header is |
|
|
|
record |
|
|
|
Magic_Number |
|
: Special_Stamp; |
|
Number_Of_Records : Record_Number; |
|
: Record_Number; |
|
First_Deleted |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
type Row is |
|
|
|
record |
|
Key |
|
Data : String(1 .. 255); |
|
|
|
: String(1 .. 80); |
|
|
|
end record; |
|
|
|
package Header_IO is new generic_IO.Read_Write (File_Header); |
|
use Header_IO; |
|
package Row_IO |
|
use Record_IO; |
|
end A_Database; |
|
: |
|
: |
|
declare |
|
|
|
is new generic_IO.Read_Write (Row); |
|
|
|
: generic_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
|
Handle |
|
A_Header : File_Header; |
|
: Row; |
|
A_Row |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
generic_IO.Open(File => Handle, Name => "Test"); |
|
Header_IO.Write(Handle, A_Header); |
|
Row_IO.Write(Handle, A_Row); |
|
generic_IO.Close(Handle); |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
5.3. STREAMS |
|
|
|
5.3 Streams |
|
|
|
5. IO |
|
|
|
This is a new Ada-95 feature which I will add once I have a copy of GNAT which supports the feature. |
|
I like to have examples which I have compiled/tried. |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Interfacing to other languages |
|
|
|
Ada-95 has a specified set of packages under the top level package Interfaces which define |
|
functions to allow you to convert data types between the Ada program and the external language |
|
routines. |
|
|
|
The full set of packages defined for interfaces are show below. |
|
|
|
Interfaces |
|
|
|
C |
|
|
|
Pointers |
|
Strings |
|
|
|
COBOL |
|
|
|
CPP |
|
|
|
Fortran |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
Concurrency |
|
|
|
To some this section does not fit in the remit of a C++ programmers guide to Ada, however most |
|
modern operating systems contain constructs known either as lightweight processes or as threads. |
|
These allow programmers to have multiple threads of execution within the same address space. Many |
|
of you will be familiar with this concept and so I will use it as a basis for explaining tasks below, you |
|
may skip the next paragraph. |
|
|
|
Unlike C/C++ Ada defines a concurrency model as part of the language itself. Some languages |
|
(Modula-3) provide a concurrency model through the use of standard library packages, and of course |
|
some operating systems provide libraries to provide concurrency. In Ada there are two base com- |
|
ponents, the task which encapsulates a concurrent process and the protected type which is a data |
|
structure which provides guarded access to its data. |
|
|
|
7.1 Tasks |
|
|
|
7.1.1 Tasks as threads |
|
|
|
For those who have not worked in a multi-threaded environment you might like to consider the ad- |
|
vantages. In a non-multi-threaded UNIX (for example) the granularity of concurrency is the process. |
|
This process is an atomic entity to communicate with other processes you must use sockets, IPC etc. |
|
The only way to start a cooperating process is to initialise some global data and use the fork function |
|
to start a process which is a copy of the current process and so inherits these global variables. The |
|
problem with this model is that the global variables are now replicated in both processes, a change to |
|
one is not reflected in the other. |
|
|
|
In a multi-threaded environment multiple concurrent processes are allowed within the same address |
|
space, that is they can share global data. Usually there are a set of API calls such as StartThread, |
|
StopThread etc which manage these processes. |
|
|
|
Note: An Ada program with no tasks is really an Ada process with a single running task, the default |
|
code. |
|
|
|
7.1.2 A Simple task |
|
|
|
In the example below an Ada task is presented which will act like a thread found in a multi-threaded |
|
operating system such as OS/2, Windows-NT or Solaris. |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
task X is |
|
end X; |
|
|
|
task body X is |
|
begin |
|
loop |
|
|
|
-- processing. |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end X; |
|
|
|
As with packages a task comes in two blocks, the specification and the body. Both of these are shown |
|
above, the task specification simply declares the name of the task and nothing more. The body of the |
|
task shows that it is a loop processing something. In many cases a task is simply a straight through |
|
block of code which is executed in parallel, or it may be, as in this case, modelled as a service loop. |
|
|
|
7.1.3 Task as types |
|
|
|
Tasks can be defined as types, this means that you can define a task which can be used by any client. |
|
Once defined as a task objects of that type can be created in the usual way. Consider: |
|
|
|
task type X is |
|
end X; |
|
Item : X; |
|
Items : array (0 .. 9) of X; |
|
|
|
Note: however that tasks are declared as constants, you cannot assign to them and you cannot test for |
|
equality. |
|
|
|
7.2 Task synchronization (Rendezvouz) |
|
|
|
The advantage of Ada tasking is that the Ada task model provides much more than the multi-threaded |
|
operating systems mentioned above. When creating a thread to do some work we must seperately |
|
create semaphores and/or other IPC objects to manage the cooperation between threads, and all of |
|
this is of course system dependant. |
|
|
|
The Ada tasking model defines methods for inter-task cooperation and much more in a system inde- |
|
pendant way using constructs known as Rendezvous. |
|
|
|
A Rendezvouz is just what it sounds like, a meeting place where two tasks arrange to meet up, if |
|
one task reaches it first then it waits for the other to arrive. And in fact a queue is formed for each |
|
rendezvous of all tasks waiting (in FIFO order). |
|
|
|
7.2.1 |
|
|
|
entry/accept |
|
|
|
A task contains a number of elements, data items, procedural code and rendezvous. A rendezvous is |
|
represented in the task specification like a procedure call returning no value (though it can have in |
|
out parameters). It can take any number of parameters, but rather that the keyword procedure the |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
keyword entry is used. In the task body however the keyword accept is used, and instead of the |
|
procedure syntax of is begin simply do is used. The reason for this is that rendezvous in a task |
|
are simply sections of the code in it, they are not seperate elements as procedures are. |
|
|
|
Consider the example below, a system of some sort has a cache of elements, it requests an element |
|
from the cache, if it is not in the cache then the cache itself reads an element from the master set. If |
|
this process of reading from the master fills the cache then it must be reordered. When the process |
|
finishes with the item it calls PutBack which updates the cache and if required updates the master. |
|
|
|
task type Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
entry Request(Item : out Item_Type); |
|
entry PutBack(Item : in Item_Type); |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- open the log file. |
|
loop |
|
|
|
accept Request(Item : out Item_Type) do |
|
|
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
-- if had to get new, then quickly |
|
-- check cache for overflow. |
|
accept PutBack(Item : in Item_Type) do |
|
|
|
-- replace item in cache. |
|
|
|
end PutBack; |
|
-- if item put back has changed |
|
-- then possibly update original. |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
-- the client code begins here: |
|
declare |
|
|
|
Cache : Cached_Items; |
|
Item : Item_Type; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
Cache.Request(Item); |
|
-- process. |
|
Cache.PutBack(Item); |
|
|
|
end; |
|
|
|
It is the sequence of processing which is important here, Firstly the client task (remember, even if |
|
the client is the main program it is still, logically, a task) creates the cache task which executes its |
|
body. The first thing the cache (owner task) does is some procedural code, its initialisation, in this |
|
case to open its log file. Next we have an accept statement, this is a rendezvous, and in this case |
|
the two parties are the owner task, when it reaches the keyword accept and the client task that calls |
|
Cache.Request(Item). |
|
|
|
If the client task calls Request before the owner task has reached the accept then the client task |
|
will wait for the owner task. However we would not expect the owner task to take very long to open |
|
a log file, so it is more likely that it will reach the accept first and wait for a client task. |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
When both client and owner tasks are at the rendezvous then the owner task executes the accept |
|
code while the client task waits. When the owner task reaches the end of the rendezvous both the |
|
owner and the client are set off again on their own way. |
|
|
|
7.2.2 |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
If we look closely at our example above you might notice that if the client task calls Request |
|
twice in a row then you have a deadly embrace, the owner task cannot get to Request before |
|
executing PutBack and the client task cannot execute PutBack until it has satisfied the second |
|
call to Request. |
|
|
|
To get around this problem we use a select statement which allows the task to specify a number of |
|
entry points which are valid at any time. |
|
|
|
task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- open the log file. |
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
loop |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
|
-- replace item in cache. |
|
|
|
end PutBack; |
|
-- if item put back has changed |
|
-- then possibly update original. |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
-- if had to get new, then quickly |
|
-- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
We have done two major things, first we have added the select construct which says that during |
|
the loop a client may call either of the entry points. The second point is that we moved a copy of the |
|
entry point into the initialisation section of the task so that we must call Request before anything |
|
else. It is worth noting that we can have many entry points with the same name and they may be the |
|
same or may do something different but we only need one entry in the task specification. |
|
|
|
In effect the addition of the select statement means that the owner task now waits on the select |
|
itself until one of the specified accepts are called. |
|
|
|
Note: possibly more important is the fact that we have not changed the specification for the task at all |
|
yet!. |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
7.2.3 |
|
|
|
guarded entries |
|
|
|
Within a select statement it is possible to specify the conditions under which an accept may be |
|
valid, so: |
|
|
|
task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
|
Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- open the log file. |
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
loop |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
when Number_Requested > 0 => |
|
accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
|
-- replace item in cache. |
|
|
|
end PutBack; |
|
-- if item put back has changed |
|
-- then possibly update original. |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
-- if had to get new, then quickly |
|
-- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
This (possibly erroneous) example adds two internal values, one to keep track of the number of items |
|
in the cache, and the size of the cache. If no items have been read into the cache then you cannot |
|
logicaly put anything back. |
|
|
|
7.2.4 delays |
|
|
|
It is possible to put a delay statement into a task, this statement has two modes, delay for a given |
|
amount of time, or delay until a given time. So: |
|
|
|
delay 5.0; -- delay for 5 seconds |
|
delay Ada.Calendar.Clock; -- delay until it is ... |
|
delay until A_Time; -- Ada-95 equivalent of above |
|
|
|
The first line is simple, delay the task for a given number, or fraction of, seconds. This mode takes a |
|
parameter of type Duration specified in the package System. The next two both wait until a time |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
is reached, the secodn line also takes a Duration, the third line takes a parameter of type Time |
|
from package Ada.Calendar. |
|
|
|
It is more interesting to note the effect of one of these when used in a select statement. For example, |
|
if an accept is likely to take a long time you might use: |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
accept An_Entry do |
|
end An_Entry; |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
delay 5.0; |
|
Put("An_Entry: timeout"); |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
This runs the delay and the accept concurrently and if the delay completes before the accept |
|
then the accept is aborted and the task continues at the statement after the delay, in this case the |
|
error message. |
|
|
|
It is possible to protect procedural code in the same way, so we might amend our example by: |
|
|
|
task body Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
|
Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- open the log file. |
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
loop |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
when Number_Requested > 0 => |
|
accept PutBack(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
|
|
-- replace item in cache. |
|
|
|
end PutBack; |
|
select |
|
|
|
-- if item put back has changed |
|
-- then possibly update original. |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
delay 2.0; |
|
-- abort the cache update code |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
accept Request(Item : Item_Type) do |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
-- if had to get new, then quickly |
|
-- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
7.2. TASK SYNCHRONIZATION (RENDEZVOUZ) |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
7.2.5 |
|
|
|
select else |
|
|
|
The else clause allows us to execute a non-blocking select statement, so we could code a polling |
|
task, such as: |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
accept Do_Something do |
|
end DO_Something; |
|
|
|
else |
|
|
|
-- do something else. |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
So that if no one has called the entry points specified we continue rather than waiting for a client. |
|
|
|
7.2.6 |
|
|
|
termination |
|
|
|
The example we have been working on does not end, it simply loops forever. We can terminate a task |
|
by using the keyword terminate which executes a nice orderly cleanup of the task. (We can also |
|
kill a task in a more immediate way using the abort command, this is NOT recommended). |
|
|
|
The terminate alternative is used for a task to specify that the run time environment can terminate |
|
the task if all its actions are complete and no clients are waiting. |
|
|
|
loop |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
accept Do_Something do |
|
end Do_Something; |
|
|
|
or |
|
|
|
terminate; |
|
end select; |
|
|
|
end loop; |
|
|
|
The abort command is used by a client to terminate a task, possibly if it is not behaving correctly. |
|
The command takes a task identifer as an argument, so using our example above we might say: |
|
|
|
if Task_In_Error(Cache) then |
|
|
|
abort Cache; |
|
|
|
end if; |
|
|
|
The then abort clause is very similar to the delay example above, the code between then |
|
abort and end select is aborted if the delay clause finishes first. |
|
|
|
select |
|
|
|
delay 5.0; |
|
Put("An_Entry: timeout"); |
|
|
|
then abort |
|
|
|
accept An_Entry do |
|
end An_Entry; |
|
|
|
end select; |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
7.3. PROTECTED TYPES |
|
|
|
7. CONCURRENCY |
|
|
|
7.2.7 |
|
|
|
conditional entry calls |
|
|
|
In addition to direct calls to entry points clients may rendezvous with a task with three conditional |
|
forms of a select statement: |
|
|
|
• Timed entry call |
|
|
|
• Conditional entry call |
|
|
|
• Asynchronous select |
|
|
|
7.3 Protected types |
|
|
|
Protected types are a new feature added to the Ada-95 language standard. These act like the monitor |
|
constructs found in other languages, which means that they monitor access to their internal data and |
|
ensure that no two tasks can access the object at the same time. In effect every entry point is mutually |
|
exclusive. Basically a protected type looks like: |
|
|
|
protected type Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
function Request return Item_Type; |
|
procedure PutBack(Item : in Item_Type); |
|
|
|
private |
|
|
|
Log_File : Ada.Text_IO.File_Type; |
|
Number_Requested : Integer := 0; |
|
Cache_Size : constant Integer := 50; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
protected body Cached_Items is |
|
|
|
function Request return Item_Type is |
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- initialise, if required |
|
-- satisfy from cache or get new. |
|
-- if had to get new, then quickly |
|
-- check cache for overflow. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
procedure PutBack(Item : in Item_Type) is |
|
begin |
|
|
|
-- initialise, if required |
|
-- replace item in cache. |
|
-- if item put back has changed |
|
-- then possibly update original. |
|
|
|
end Request; |
|
|
|
end Cached_Items; |
|
|
|
This is an implementation of our cache from the task discussion above. Note now that the names |
|
Request and PutBack are now simply calls like any other. This does show some of the differences |
|
between tasks and protected types, for example the protected type above, because it is a passive |
|
object cannot completly initialise itself, so each procedure and/or function must check if it has been |
|
initialised. Also we must do all processing within the stated procedures. |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
References |
|
|
|
[1] Ada Language Reference Manual http://www.adahome/rm95 |
|
|
|
[2] Ada Rationale |
|
|
|
http://www.adahome.com/LRM/95/Rationale/rat95html/ |
|
|
|
rat95-contents.html |
|
|
|
[3] Ada Quality and Style: Guidelines for professional programmers |
|
|
|
[4] Programming in Ada (3rd Edition), J.G.P.Barnes, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
|
[5] Ada Programmers FAQ http://www.adahome.com/FAQ/programming.html# |
|
|
|
title. |
|
|
|
[6] Abstract Data Types Are Under Full Control with Ada9X (TRI-Ada ’94) http://www. |
|
|
|
adahome.com/Resources/Papers.html |
|
|
|
[7] Working With Ada9X Classes (TRI-Ada ’94) http://www.adahome.com/Resources/ |
|
|
|
Papers.html |
|
|
|
[8] Lovelace |
|
|
|
on-line |
|
lovelace.htm. |
|
|
|
tutorial http://www.adahome.com/Tutorials/Lovelace/ |
|
|
|
[9] Design and evolution of C++, Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
|
[10] The annotated C++ reference manual, Margaret Ellis and Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley. |
|
|
|
Acknowledgements |
|
|
|
My thanks must go to the following people for help, pointers, proof-reading, suggestions and encour- |
|
agement. |
|
|
|
S. Tucker Taft (Intermetrics), Magnus Kempe and Robb Nebbe (EPFL), Michael Bartz (University of |
|
Memphis), David Weller, Kevin Nash (Bournemouth University), Laurent Guerby, Jono Powell, Bill |
|
Wagner (Hazeltine). |
|
|
|
Once again, thank you. |
|
|
|
For comments, additions, corrections, gripes, kudos, etc. e-mail to: |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston (Team Ada) – skj@rb.icl.co.uk |
|
|
|
ICL Retail Systems |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
Index |
|
|
|
accept, 58 |
|
access types, 16 |
|
Ada.Direct_IO, package, 53 |
|
Ada.Sequential_IO, package, 53 |
|
Ada.Text_IO, package, 52 |
|
aggregates, 15 |
|
arrays, 13 |
|
attribute |
|
|
|
First, 13 |
|
Last, 13 |
|
Length, 13 |
|
Pos, 12 |
|
Pred, 12 |
|
Range, 13 |
|
Succ, 12 |
|
Val, 12 |
|
|
|
case statement (switch in C), 25 |
|
casting, 18 |
|
Character, 9 |
|
compound statement, 24 |
|
concurrency, 57 |
|
constant, 8 |
|
|
|
declare, see compound statement |
|
default parameters, 32 |
|
delay, 61 |
|
discriminats, 19 |
|
|
|
entry, task, 58 |
|
enumerations, 11 |
|
exception handling, 29 |
|
exceptions, 20 |
|
exit statement, 27 |
|
|
|
First, see attribute First |
|
Fixed, 11 |
|
Float, type, 10 |
|
for loop, 26 |
|
|
|
generic |
|
|
|
package, 50 |
|
procedure, 49 |
|
types, 51 |
|
generics, 49 |
|
goto statement, 29 |
|
guarded entries, 61 |
|
|
|
hierarchical package, 40 |
|
|
|
if statement, 24 |
|
inheritance, 45 |
|
Integer, 9 |
|
|
|
Last, see attribute Last |
|
Length, see attribute Length |
|
|
|
modes, parameter passing modes, 32 |
|
|
|
Object Oriented Programming, 43 |
|
overloading, 31 |
|
|
|
package, 37 |
|
pointers, see access types |
|
Pos, see attribute Pos |
|
Pred, see attribute Pred |
|
predefined exceptions, 34 |
|
protected type, 64 |
|
|
|
Range, see attribute Range |
|
records, 15 |
|
renaming, 41 |
|
rendezvouz, 58 |
|
representation of types, 20 |
|
return statement, 28 |
|
|
|
safety, 33 |
|
select, 60 |
|
|
|
else, 63 |
|
slicing, arrays, 15 |
|
streams, 55 |
|
String, type, 10 |
|
subprograms (procedures and functions), 30 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
INDEX |
|
|
|
INDEX |
|
|
|
subtype, 9 |
|
Succ, see attribute Succ |
|
|
|
tagged type, 44 |
|
task type, 58 |
|
tasks, 57 |
|
termination, 63 |
|
type, 8 |
|
|
|
Unchecked_Conversion, 35 |
|
Unchecked_Deallocation, 36 |
|
|
|
Val, see attribute Val |
|
variant records, 19 |
|
|
|
while loop, 26 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|