3.9.3 Abstract Types and Subprograms

An abstract subprogram has no body, so the rules in this clause are designed to ensure (at compile time) that the body will never be invoked. We do so primarily by disallowing the creation of values of the abstract type. Therefore, since type conversion and parameter passing don't change the tag, we know we will never get a class-wide value with a tag identifying an abstract type. This means that we only have to disallow nondispatching calls on abstract subprograms (dispatching calls will never reach them). 

Ramification: Untagged types are never abstract, even though they can have primitive abstract subprograms. Such subprograms cannot be called, unless they also happen to be dispatching operations of some tagged type, and then only via a dispatching call.

Class-wide types are never abstract. If T is abstract, then it is illegal to declare a stand-alone object of type T, but it is OK to declare a stand-alone object of type T'Class; the latter will get a tag from its initial value, and this tag will necessarily be different from T'Tag. 

Ramification: Note that for a private type, this applies to both views. The following is illegal: 

The full view of T is not abstract, but has an abstract operation Foo, which is illegal. The two lines marked "-- Illegal!" are illegal when taken together. 

Reason: {AI95-00310-01} We considered disallowing untagged types from having abstract primitive subprograms. However, we rejected that plan, because it introduced some silly anomalies, and because such subprograms are harmless (if not terribly useful). For example: 

It seemed silly to make the derivative of My_Field_Size illegal, just because there was an implicitly declared abstract subprogram that was not primitive on some tagged type. Other rules could be formulated to solve this problem, but the current ones seem like the simplest.

{AI95-00310-01} In Ada 2005, abstract primitive subprograms of an untagged type may be used to “undefine” an operation.

Ramification: {AI95-00260-02} Note that the second sentence does not apply to abstract formal subprograms, as they are never primitive operations of a type. 

Ramification: {AI05-0068-1} These rules apply to each view of the type individually. That is necessary to preserve privacy. For instance, in the following example: 

Note that this means that whether an inherited subprogram is abstract or concrete depends on where it inherited. In the case of Q, Q.Op in the visible part is abstract, while Q.Op in the private part is concrete. That is, R is illegal since it is an unrelated unit (and thus it cannot see the private part), but if R had been a private child of Q, it would have been legal.

Ramification: Note that it is possible to override a concrete subprogram with an abstract one. 

Reason: {AI95-00228-01} {AI95-00391-01} A function that returns the parent type requires overriding becomes abstract for a an abstract type extension (or becomes abstract for an abstract type)(if not overridden) because conversion from a parent type to a type extension is not defined, and function return semantics is defined in terms of conversion (other than for a null extension; see below). (Note that parameters of mode in out or out do not have this problem, because the tag of the actual is not changed.)

Note that the overriding required above can be in the private part, which allows the following: 

{AI95-00228-01} T2 inherits an abstract Do_Something, but T2 T is not abstract, so Do_Something has to be overridden. However, it is OK to override it in the private part. In this case, we override it by inheriting a concrete version from a different type. Nondispatching calls to Pack3.Do_Something are allowed both inside and outside package Pack3, as the client “knows” that the subprogram was necessarily overridden somewhere.

{AI95-00391-01} For a null extension, the result of a function with a controlling result is defined in terms of an extension_aggregate with a null record extension part (see 3.4). This means that these restrictions on functions with a controlling result do not have to apply to null extensions.

{AI95-00391-01} However, functions with controlling access results still require overriding. Changing the tag in place might clobber a preexisting object, and allocating new memory would possibly change the pool of the object, leading to storage leaks. Moreover, copying the object isn't possible for limited types. We don't need to restrict functions that have an access return type of an untagged type, as derived types with primitive subprograms have to have the same representation as their parent type. 

Ramification: {AI95-00310-01} If an abstract subprogram is not a dispatching operation of some tagged type, then it cannot be called at all. In Ada 2005, such subprograms are not even considered by name resolution (see 6.4).

Reason: This ensures that values of an abstract type cannot be created, which ensures that a dispatching call to an abstract subprogram will not try to execute the nonexistent body.

Generic formal objects of mode in are like constants; therefore they should be forbidden for abstract types. Generic formal objects of mode in out are like renamings; therefore, abstract types are OK for them, though probably not terribly useful.

{AI05-0073-1} Generic functions returning a formal abstract type are illegal because any instance would have to be instantiated with a non-abstract type in order to avoid violating the function rule (generic functions cannot be declared abstract). But that would be an implied contract; it would be better for the contract to be explicit by the formal type not being declared abstract. Moreover, the implied contract does not add any capability. 

Discussion: By contrast, we allow the actual type to be nonabstract even if the formal type is declared abstract. Hence, the most general formal tagged type possible is "type T(<>) is abstract tagged limited private;".

For an abstract private extension declared in the visible part of a package, it is only possible for the full type to be nonabstract if the private extension has no abstract dispatching operations. 

To be honest: {AI95-00294-01} In the sentence about primitive subprograms above, there is some ambiguity as to what is meant by “corresponding” in the case where an inherited operation is overridden. This is best explained by an example, where the implicit declarations are shown as comments: 

Type T2 inherits a non-abstract procedure P (2) from the primitive procedure P (1) of T1. P (2) is overridden by the explicitly declared abstract procedure P (3). Type D inherits a non-abstract procedure P (4) from P (1). In instantiation I, the operation corresponding to P (4) is the one which is not overridden, that is, P (3): the overridden operation P (2) does not “reemerge”. Therefore, the instantiation is illegal. 

Reason: The “visible part” could be that of a package or a generic package. This rule is needed because a non-abstract type extension declared outside the package would not know about any abstract primitive subprograms or primitive functions with controlling results declared in the private part, and wouldn't know that they need to be overridden with non-abstract subprograms. The rule applies to a tagged record type or record extension declared in a visible part, just as to a tagged private type or private extension. The rule applies to explicitly and implicitly declared abstract subprograms: 

The above example would be illegal if T1 has a non-abstract primitive procedure P, but T2 overrides P with an abstract one; the private part should override P with a non-abstract version. On the other hand, if the P were abstract for both T1 and T2, the example would be legal as is. 

Ramification: An abstract_subprogram_declaration is not syntactically a subprogram_declaration. Nonetheless, an abstract subprogram is a subprogram, and an abstract_subprogram_declaration is a declaration of a subprogram.

{AI95-00260-02} The part about generic actual subprograms includes those given by default. Of course, an abstract formal subprogram's actual subprogram can be abstract.

Ramification: A derived type can be abstract even if its parent is not. Similarly, an inherited concrete subprogram can be overridden with an abstract subprogram. 

Discussion: One way to export a type from a package with some components visible and some components private is as follows: 

The fact that Public_Part is abstract tells clients they have to create objects of type T instead of Public_Part. Note that the public part has to come first; it would be illegal to declare a private type Private_Part, and then a record extension T of it, unless T were in the private part after the full declaration of Private_Part, but then clients of the package would not have visibility to T. 

{AI95-00391-01} It is not necessary to override functions with a controlling result for a null extension. This makes it easier to derive a tagged type to complete a private type.

{AI95-00251-01} {AI95-00345-01} Updated the wording to reflect the addition of interface types (see 3.9.4).

{AI95-00260-02} Updated the wording to reflect the addition of abstract formal subprograms (see 12.6).

{AI95-00334-01} The wording of shall-be-overridden was clarified so that it clearly applies to abstract predefined equality.

{AI95-00348-01} Moved the syntax and elaboration rule for abstract_subprogram_declaration here, so the syntax and most of the semantics are together (which is consistent with null procedures).

{AI95-00391-01} We define the term require overriding to make other wording easier to understand. 

{AI05-0073-1} Correction: Added rules to eliminate holes with controlling access results and generic functions that return abstract types. While these changes are technically incompatible, it is unlikely that they could be used in a program without violating some other rule of the use of abstract types.

{AI05-0097-1} Correction: Corrected a minor glitch having to do with abstract null extensions. The Ada 2005 rule allowed such extensions to inherit concrete operations in some rare cases. It is unlikely that these cases exist in user code. 

{AI05-0183-1} An optional aspect_specification can be used in an abstract_subprogram_declaration. This is described in 13.3.1. 

{AI05-0198-1} Correction: Clarified that the predefined operator corresponding to an inherited abstract operator is also abstract. The Ada 2005 rules caused the predefined operator and the inherited operator to override each other, which is weird. But the effect is the same either way (the operator is not considered for resolution).

{AI05-0203-1} Correction: Added wording to disallow abstract return objects. These were illegal in Ada 2005 by other rules; the extension to support class-wide type better opened a hole which has now been plugged.