4.6 Type Conversions
1
[Explicit type conversions, both value conversions
and view conversions, are allowed between closely related types as defined
below. This clause also defines rules for value and view conversions
to a particular subtype of a type, both explicit ones and those implicit
in other constructs.
]
Syntax
2
3
4
One type is
convertible
to a second type if a
type_conversion
with the first type as operand type and the second type as target type
is legal according to the rules of this clause. Two types are convertible
if each is convertible to the other.
4.a
Ramification: Note that “convertible”
is defined in terms of legality of the conversion. Whether the conversion
would raise an exception at run time is irrelevant to this definition.
5/2
5.a
Ramification: A view conversion to a
tagged type can appear in any context that requires an object
name,
including in an object renaming, the
prefix
of a
selected_component,
and if the operand is a variable, on the left side of an
assignment_statement.
View conversions to other types only occur as actual parameters. Allowing
view conversions of untagged types in all contexts seemed to incur an
undue implementation burden.
5.b/2
{
AI95-00330-01}
A type conversion appearing as an in out
parameter in a generic instantiation is not a view conversion; the second
part of the rule only applies to subprogram calls, not instantiations.
Name Resolution Rules
6
6.a
Discussion: This replaces the "must
be determinable" wording of Ada 83. This is equivalent to (but hopefully
more intuitive than) saying that the operand of a
type_conversion
is a “complete context.”
7
The operand of a view conversion is interpreted only
as a
name;
the operand of a value conversion is interpreted as an
expression.
7.a
Reason: This formally resolves the syntactic
ambiguity between the two forms of
type_conversion,
not that it really matters.
Legality Rules
8/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
In a view conversion for an untagged type, the
target type shall be convertible (back) to the operand type.
If the target type is a numeric type, then the operand
type shall be a numeric type.
8.a/2
Reason: Untagged
view conversions appear only as [in] out parameters. Hence,
the reverse conversion must be legal as well. The forward conversion
must be legal even for an out parameter, because (for example)
actual parameters of an access type are always copied in anyway.
Paragraphs
9 through 20 were reorganized and moved below.
8.b/2
Discussion: {
AI95-00251-01}
The entire Legality Rules section has been reorganized
to eliminate an unintentional incompatibility with Ada 83. In rare cases,
a type conversion between two types related by derivation is not allowed
by Ada 95, while it is allowed in Ada 83. The reorganization fixes this.
Much of the wording of the legality section is unchanged, but it is reordered
and reformatted. Because of the limitations of our tools, we had to delete
and replace nearly the entire section. The text of Ada 95 paragraphs
8 through 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 24 are unchanged (just moved);
these are now 24.1 through 24.5, 24.12, 24.13, 24.17, 24.19, 24.20, and
8.
9/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is an array type, then the operand type shall be an array
type. Further:
10/2
11/2
12/2
12.1/2
12.a.1/2
Reason: Without
this rule, it is possible to violate the constrained status of aliased
array components. Consider:
12.a.2/2
package P is
type T is private;
A : constant T;
type A1 is array (1 .. 10) of aliased T;
type A2 is array (1 .. 10) of T;
private
type T (D : Integer := 0) is null record;
A : constant T := (D => 1);
end P;
12.a.3/2
with P;
procedure Exam is
X : P.A1;
procedure S (Y : in out P.A2) is
begin
Y (1) := P.A;
end;
begin
S (P.A2 (X)); -- This call will change the discriminant of X (1),
-- so we cannot allow the conversion.
end;
13/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is a general access type, then the operand type shall be
an access-to-object type. Further:
13.a/2
14/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the target type is an access-to-variable type,
then the operand type shall be an access-to-variable type;
14.a/2
Ramification: If
the target type is an access-to-constant type, then the operand type
can be access-to-constant or access-to-variable.
15/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the target designated type is tagged, then the
operand designated type shall be convertible to the target designated
type;
16/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the target designated type is not tagged, then
the designated types shall be the same, and either the designated subtypes
shall statically match or the target designated subtype shall be discriminated
and unconstrained; and
16.a/2
Reason: These rules
are designed to ensure that aliased array objects only need "dope"
if their nominal subtype is unconstrained, but they can always have
dope if required by the run-time model (since no sliding is permitted
as part of access type conversion). By contrast, aliased discriminated
objects will always need their discriminants stored with them,
even if nominally constrained. (Here, we are assuming an implementation
that represents an access value as a single pointer.)
17/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The accessibility level of
the operand type shall not be statically deeper than that of the target
type. In addition to the places where Legality Rules
normally apply (see 12.3), this rule applies
also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
17.a/2
Ramification: The
access parameter case is handled by a run-time check. Run-time checks
are also done in instance bodies.
18/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is an access-to-subprogram type, then the operand type shall
be an access-to-subprogram type. Further:
19/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The designated profiles shall be subtype-conformant.
20/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The accessibility level of
the operand type shall not be statically deeper than that of the target
type. In addition to the places where Legality Rules
normally apply (see 12.3), this rule applies
also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. If the operand
type is declared within a generic body, the target type shall be declared
within the generic body.
20.a/2
Reason: The reason
it is illegal to convert from an access-to-subprogram type declared in
a generic body to one declared outside that body is that in an implementation
that shares generic bodies, procedures declared inside the generic need
to have a different calling convention — they need an extra parameter
pointing to the data declared in the current instance. For procedures
declared in the spec, that's OK, because the compiler can know about
them at compile time of the instantiation.
21/3
{
AI95-00251-01}
{
AI05-0115-1}
If there
is a type (other than a root numeric type) that is an ancestor of both the target type and the operand type, or
both types are class-wide types, then at least one of the following rules
shall apply: If
the target type is not included in any of the above four cases, there
shall be a type that is an ancestor of both the target type and the operand
type. Further, if the target type is tagged, then either:
21.1/2
22
The operand type shall be covered by or descended
from the target type; or
22.a
Ramification: This is a conversion toward
the root, which is always safe.
23/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The operand type shall be a class-wide type that covers the target type
;
or.
23.a
Ramification: This is a conversion of
a class-wide type toward the leaves, which requires a tag check. See
Dynamic Semantics.
23.b/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
These two rules imply that a conversion from
an
ancestor a parent type to a type
extension is not permitted, as this would require specifying the values
for additional components, in general, and changing the tag. An
extension_aggregate
has to be used instead, constructing a new value, rather than converting
an existing value. However, a conversion from the class-wide type rooted
at
an ancestor the
parent type is permitted; such a conversion just verifies that
the operand's tag is a descendant of the target.
23.1/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The operand and target types shall both be class-wide
types and the specific type associated with at least one of them shall
be an interface type.
23.c/2
Ramification: We
allow converting any class-wide type T'Class to or from a class-wide
interface type even if the specific type T does not have an appropriate
interface ancestor, because some extension of T might have the needed
ancestor. This is similar to a conversion of a class-wide type toward
the leaves of the tree, and we need to be consistent. Of course, there
is a run-time check that the actual object has the needed interface.
24/3
{
AI95-00251-01}
{
AI05-0115-1}
If there is no type (other than a root numeric type) that is
the ancestor of both the target type and the operand type, and they are
not both class-wide types, one of the following rules shall apply: In
a view conversion for an untagged type, the target type shall be convertible
(back) to the operand type.
24.a/2
Reason: Untagged
view conversions appear only as [in] out parameters. Hence, the reverse
conversion must be legal as well. The forward conversion must be legal
even if an out parameter, because actual parameters of an access type
are always copied in anyway.
24.1/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is a numeric type, then the operand type shall be a numeric
type.
24.2/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is an array type, then the operand type shall be an array
type. Further:
24.3/2
24.4/2
24.5/2
24.6/2
{
AI95-00392-01}
If the component types are anonymous access types,
then the accessibility level of the operand type shall not be statically
deeper than that of the target type;
24.b/2
Reason: For unrelated
array types, the component types could have different accessibility,
and we had better not allow a conversion of a local type into a global
type, in case the local type points at local objects. We don't need a
check for other types of components; such components necessarily are
for related types, and either have the same accessibility or (for access
discriminants) cannot be changed so the discriminant check will prevent
problems.
24.7/2
{
AI95-00246-01}
Neither the target type nor the operand type shall
be limited;
24.c/2
Reason: We cannot
allow conversions between unrelated limited types, as they may have different
representations, and (since the types are limited), a copy cannot be
made to reconcile the representations.
24.8/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
{
AI95-00363-01}
If the target type of a view conversion has aliased
components, then so shall the operand type; and
24.d/2
Reason: {
AI95-00363-01}
We cannot allow a view conversion from an object
with unaliased components to an object with aliased components, because
that would effectively allow pointers to unaliased components. This rule
was missing from Ada 95.
24.9/2
24.e/2
Reason: {
AI95-00246-01}
We cannot allow view conversions between unrelated
might-be-by-reference types, as they may have different representations,
and a copy cannot be made to reconcile the representations.
24.f/2
Ramification: These
rules only apply to unrelated array conversions; different (weaker) rules
apply to conversions between related types.
24.10/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
If the target type is universal_access,
then the operand type shall be an access type.
24.g/2
Discussion: Such
a conversion cannot be written explicitly, of course, but it can be implicit
(see below).
24.11/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is a general access-to-object type, then the operand type
shall be universal_access or an access-to-object type. Further,
if the operand type is not universal_access:
24.h/2
Discussion: The
Legality Rules and Dynamic Semantics are worded so that a type_conversion
T(X) (where T is an access type) is (almost) equivalent to the attribute_reference
X.all'Access, where the result is of type T. The only difference
is that the type_conversion
accepts a null value, whereas the attribute_reference
would raise Constraint_Error.
24.12/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the target type is an access-to-variable type,
then the operand type shall be an access-to-variable type;
24.i/2
Ramification: If
the target type is an access-to-constant type, then the operand type
can be access-to-constant or access-to-variable.
24.13/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the target designated type is tagged, then the
operand designated type shall be convertible to the target designated
type;
24.14/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
{
AI95-00363-01}
If the target designated type is not tagged, then
the designated types shall be the same, and either:
24.15/2
{
AI95-00363-01}
the designated subtypes shall statically match;
or
24.16/2
{
AI95-00363-01}
{
AI95-00384-01}
the designated type shall be discriminated in its
full view and unconstrained in any partial view, and one of the designated
subtypes shall be unconstrained;
24.j/2
Ramification: {
AI95-00363-01}
This does not require that types have a partial
view in order to allow the conversion, simply that any partial view that
does exist is unconstrained.
24.k/2
{
AI95-00384-01}
This allows conversions both ways (either subtype
can be unconstrained); while Ada 95 only allowed the conversion if the
target subtype is unconstrained. We generally want type conversions to
be symmetric; which type is the target shouldn't matter for legality.
24.l/2
Reason: {
AI95-00363-01}
If the visible partial view is constrained, we
do not allow conversion between unconstrained and constrained subtypes.
This means that whether the full type had discriminants is not visible
to clients of the partial view.
24.m/2
Reason: These rules
are designed to ensure that aliased array objects only need "dope"
if their nominal subtype is unconstrained, but they can always have
dope if required by the run-time model (since no sliding is permitted
as part of access type conversion). By contrast, aliased discriminated
objects will always need their discriminants stored with them,
even if nominally constrained. (Here, we are assuming an implementation
that represents an access value as a single pointer.)
24.17/3
{
AI95-00251-01}
{
AI05-0148-1}
{
AI05-0248-1}
The accessibility level of
the operand type shall not be statically deeper than that of the target
type, unless the target type is an anonymous
access type of a stand-alone object. If the target type is that of such
a stand-alone object, the accessibility level of the operand type shall
not be statically deeper than that of the declaration of the stand-alone
object. In addition
to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3),
this rule applies also in the private part of an instance of a generic
unit.
24.n/3
Ramification: {
AI05-0148-1}
The access parameter case is handled by a run-time
check. Run-time checks are also done in instance bodies,
and for stand-alone objects of anonymous access types.
24.n.1/3
Reason: We prohibit
storing accesses to objects deeper than a stand-alone object of an anonymous
access-to-object (even while we allow storing all other accesses) in
order to prevent dangling accesses.
24.18/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
If the
target type is a pool-specific access-to-object type, then the operand
type shall be universal_access.
24.o/2
Reason: This allows
null to be converted to pool-specific types. Without it, null
could be converted to general access types but not pool-specific ones,
which would be too inconsistent. Remember that these rules only apply
to unrelated types, so we don't have to talk about conversions to derived
or other related types.
24.19/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
{
AI95-00251-01}
If the
target type is an access-to-subprogram type, then the operand type shall
be universal_access or an access-to-subprogram type. Further,
if the operand type is not universal_access:
24.20/3
24.21/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The accessibility level of
the operand type shall not be statically deeper than that of the target
type. In addition to the places where Legality Rules
normally apply (see 12.3), this rule applies
also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. If the operand
type is declared within a generic body, the target type shall be declared
within the generic body.
24.p/2
Reason: The reason
it is illegal to convert from an access-to-subprogram type declared in
a generic body to one declared outside that body is that in an implementation
that shares generic bodies, procedures declared inside the generic need
to have a different calling convention — they need an extra parameter
pointing to the data declared in the current instance. For procedures
declared in the spec, that's OK, because the compiler can know about
them at compile time of the instantiation.
Static Semantics
25
A
type_conversion
that is a value conversion denotes the value that is the result of converting
the value of the operand to the target subtype.
26/3
{
AI05-0264-1}
A
type_conversion
that is a view conversion denotes a view of the object denoted by the
operand. This view is a variable of the target type if the operand denotes
a variable; otherwise
, it is a constant
of the target type.
27
Dynamic Semantics
28
For
the evaluation of a
type_conversion
that is a value conversion, the operand is evaluated, and then the value
of the operand is
converted to a
corresponding value of
the target type, if any.
If
there is no value of the target type that corresponds to the operand
value, Constraint_Error is raised[; this can only happen on conversion
to a modular type, and only when the operand value is outside the base
range of the modular type.] Additional rules follow:
29
30
If the target and the operand types
are both integer types, then the result is the value of the target type
that corresponds to the same mathematical integer as the operand.
31
If the target type is a decimal
fixed point type, then the result is truncated (toward 0) if the value
of the operand is not a multiple of the small of the target type.
32
If the target
type is some other real type, then the result is within the accuracy
of the target type (see
G.2, “
Numeric
Performance Requirements”, for implementations that support
the Numerics Annex).
32.a
Discussion: An integer type might have
more bits of precision than a real type, so on conversion (of a large
integer), some precision might be lost.
33
If the target type is an integer
type and the operand type is real, the result is rounded to the nearest
integer (away from zero if exactly halfway between two integers).
33.a/2
Discussion: {
AI95-00267-01}
This was implementation defined in Ada 83. There seems no reason to preserve
the nonportability in Ada 95. Round-away-from-zero is the conventional
definition of rounding, and standard Fortran and COBOL both specify rounding
away from zero, so for interoperability, it seems important to pick this.
This is also the most easily “undone” by hand. Round-to-nearest-even
is an alternative, but that is quite complicated if not supported by
the hardware. In any case, this operation is not
usually expected
to be part of an inner loop, so predictability and portability
are judged most important.
A We
anticipate that a floating point attribute function Unbiased_Rounding
is will be
provided
(see A.5.3)
for those applications that require round-to-nearest-even
,
and a floating point attribute function Machine_Rounding (also see A.5.3)
is provided for those applications that require the highest possible
performance. “Deterministic” rounding is required
for static conversions to integer as well. See
4.9.
34
Enumeration
Type Conversion
35
The result is the value of the target
type with the same position number as that of the operand value.
36
37
If
the target subtype is a constrained array subtype, then a check is made
that the length of each dimension of the value of the operand equals
the length of the corresponding dimension of the target subtype. The
bounds of the result are those of the target subtype.
38
If
the target subtype is an unconstrained array subtype, then the bounds
of the result are obtained by converting each bound of the value of the
operand to the corresponding index type of the target type.
For
each nonnull index range, a check is made that the bounds of the range
belong to the corresponding index subtype.
38.a
Discussion: Only nonnull index ranges
are checked, per AI83-00313.
39
In either array case, the value
of each component of the result is that of the matching component of
the operand value (see
4.5.2).
39.a
Ramification: This applies whether or
not the component is initialized.
39.1/2
{
AI95-00392-01}
If the component types of the array types are anonymous
access types, then a check is made that the accessibility level of the
operand type is not deeper than that of the target type.
39.b/2
Reason: This check
is needed for operands that are access parameters and in instance bodies.
Other cases are handled by the legality rule given previously.
40
Composite
(Non-Array) Type Conversion
41
The value of each nondiscriminant
component of the result is that of the matching component of the operand
value.
41.a
Ramification: This applies whether or
not the component is initialized.
42
[The tag of the result is that of
the operand.]
If the operand
type is class-wide, a check is made that the tag of the operand identifies
a (specific) type that is covered by or descended from the target type.
42.a
Ramification: This check is certain to
succeed if the operand type is itself covered by or descended from the
target type.
42.b
43
For each discriminant of the target
type that corresponds to a discriminant of the operand type, its value
is that of the corresponding discriminant of the operand value;
if
it corresponds to more than one discriminant of the operand type, a check
is made that all these discriminants are equal in the operand value.
44
For each discriminant of the target
type that corresponds to a discriminant that is specified by the
derived_type_definition
for some ancestor of the operand type (or if class-wide, some ancestor
of the specific type identified by the tag of the operand), its value
in the result is that specified by the
derived_type_definition.
44.a
Ramification: It is a ramification of
the rules for the discriminants of derived types that each discriminant
of the result is covered either by this paragraph or the previous one.
See
3.7.
45
For
each discriminant of the operand type that corresponds to a discriminant
that is specified by the
derived_type_definition
for some ancestor of the target type, a check is made that in the operand
value it equals the value specified for it.
46
For
each discriminant of the result, a check is made that its value belongs
to its subtype.
47
48/3
{
AI05-0148-1}
{
AI05-0248-1}
For an access-to-object type, a check is made that the accessibility
level of the operand type is not deeper than that of the target type
,
unless the target type is an anonymous access type of a stand-alone object.
If the target type is that of such a stand-alone object, a check is made
that the accessibility level of the operand type is not deeper than that
of the declaration of the stand-alone object[; then if the check succeeds,
the accessibility level of the target type becomes that of the operand
type].
48.a/3
Ramification: {
AI05-0148-1}
This check is needed for operands that are access parameters
,
for stand-alone anonymous access objects, and in instance bodies.
48.b
Note that this check can never fail for the
implicit conversion to the anonymous type of an access parameter that
is done when calling a subprogram with an access parameter.
49/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
{
AI95-00231-01}
If the
target type is an anonymous access type,
a check is made that the value of the operand is not null; if the target
is not an anonymous access type, then the result is null if the operand
value is null
, the result of the conversion is
the null value of the target type..
49.a/2
Ramification: A conversion to an anonymous
access type happens implicitly as part of initializing or
assigning to an anonymous access object an
access discriminant or access parameter.
49.b/2
50
If the operand value is not null,
then the result designates the same object (or subprogram) as is designated
by the operand value, but viewed as being of the target designated subtype
(or profile); any checks associated with evaluating a conversion to the
target designated subtype are performed.
50.a
Ramification: The checks are certain
to succeed if the target and operand designated subtypes statically match.
51/3
{
AI95-00231-01}
{
AI05-0153-3}
After
conversion of the value to the target type, if the target subtype is
constrained, a check is performed that the value satisfies this constraint.
If the target subtype excludes null, then a check is made that the value
is not null. If the assertion policy (see
11.4.2) in effect is Check, the predicate
of the target subtype is applied to the value and Assertions.Assertion_Error
is raised if the result is False.
51.a/2
Ramification: {
AI95-00231-01}
The
first above
check
above is a Range_Check for scalar
subtypes, a Discriminant_Check or Index_Check for access subtypes, and
a Discriminant_Check for discriminated subtypes. The Length_Check for
an array conversion is performed as part of the conversion to the target
type.
The check for exclusion of null is an Access_Check.
52
For the evaluation of a view
conversion, the operand
name
is evaluated, and a new view of the object denoted by the operand is
created, whose type is the target type;
if
the target type is composite, checks are performed as above for a value
conversion.
53
The properties of this
new view are as follows:
54/1
{
8652/0017}
{
AI95-00184-01}
If the target type is composite, the bounds or discriminants (if any)
of the view are as defined above for a value conversion; each nondiscriminant
component of the view denotes the matching component of the operand object;
the subtype of the view is constrained if either the target subtype or
the operand object is constrained,
or if the target
subtype is indefinite, or if the operand type is a descendant
of the target type
, and has discriminants
that were not inherited from the target type;
55
If the target type is tagged, then an assignment
to the view assigns to the corresponding part of the object denoted by
the operand; otherwise, an assignment to the view assigns to the object,
after converting the assigned value to the subtype of the object (which
might raise Constraint_Error);
56
Reading the value of the view yields the result
of converting the value of the operand object to the target subtype (which
might raise Constraint_Error), except if the object is of an access type
and the view conversion is passed as an
out parameter; in this
latter case, the value of the operand object is used to initialize the
formal parameter without checking against any constraint of the target
subtype (see
6.4.1).
56.a
Reason: This ensures that even an out
parameter of an access type is initialized reasonably.
57
If an Accessibility_Check
fails, Program_Error is raised. Any other check associated with a conversion
raises Constraint_Error if it fails.
58
Conversion to a type is the same as conversion to
an unconstrained subtype of the type.
58.a
Reason: This definition is needed because
the semantics of various constructs involves converting to a type, whereas
an explicit
type_conversion
actually converts to a subtype. For example, the evaluation of a
range
is defined to convert the values of the expressions to the type of the
range.
58.b
Ramification: A conversion to a scalar
type, or, equivalently, to an unconstrained scalar subtype, can raise
Constraint_Error if the value is outside the base range of the type.
59
20
In addition to explicit
type_conversions,
type conversions are performed implicitly in situations where the expected
type and the actual type of a construct differ, as is permitted by the
type resolution rules (see
8.6). For example,
an integer literal is of the type
universal_integer, and is implicitly
converted when assigned to a target of some specific integer type. Similarly,
an actual parameter of a specific tagged type is implicitly converted
when the corresponding formal parameter is of a class-wide type.
60
Even when
the expected and actual types are the same, implicit subtype conversions
are performed to adjust the array bounds (if any) of an operand to match
the desired target subtype, or to raise Constraint_Error if the (possibly
adjusted) value does not satisfy the constraints of the target subtype.
61/2
62
22 The constraint of the target subtype
has no effect for a
type_conversion
of an elementary type passed as an
out parameter. Hence, it is
recommended that the first subtype be specified as the target to minimize
confusion (a similar recommendation applies to renaming and generic formal
in out objects).
Examples
63
Examples of numeric
type conversion:
64
Real(2*J) -- value is converted to floating point
Integer(1.6) -- value is 2
Integer(-0.4) -- value is 0
65
Example of conversion
between derived types:
66
type A_Form is new B_Form;
67
X : A_Form;
Y : B_Form;
68
X := A_Form(Y);
Y := B_Form(X); -- the reverse conversion
69
Examples of conversions
between array types:
70
type Sequence is array (Integer range <>) of Integer;
subtype Dozen is Sequence(1 .. 12);
Ledger : array(1 .. 100) of Integer;
71
Sequence(Ledger) -- bounds are those of Ledger
Sequence(Ledger(31 .. 42)) -- bounds are 31 and 42
Dozen(Ledger(31 .. 42)) -- bounds are those of Dozen
Incompatibilities With Ada 83
71.a
71.b
The component subtypes have to statically match
in an array conversion, rather than being checked for matching constraints
at run time.
71.c
Because sliding of array bounds is now provided
for operations where it was not in Ada 83, programs that used to raise
Constraint_Error might now continue executing and produce a reasonable
result. This is likely to fix more bugs than it creates.
Extensions to Ada 83
71.d
71.e
We no longer require type-mark conformance between
a parameter of the form of a type conversion, and the corresponding formal
parameter. This had caused some problems for inherited subprograms (since
there isn't really a type-mark for converted formals), as well as for
renamings, formal subprograms, etc. See AI83-00245, AI83-00318, AI83-00547.
71.f
We now specify “deterministic” rounding
from real to integer types when the value of the operand is exactly between
two integers (rounding is away from zero in this case).
71.g
“Sliding” of array bounds (which
is part of conversion to an array subtype) is performed in more cases
in Ada 95 than in Ada 83. Sliding is not performed on the operand of
a membership test, nor on the operand of a
qualified_expression.
It wouldn't make sense on a membership test, and we wish to retain a
connection between subtype membership and subtype qualification. In general,
a subtype membership test returns True if and only if a corresponding
subtype qualification succeeds without raising an exception. Other operations
that take arrays perform sliding.
Wording Changes from Ada 83
71.h
We no longer explicitly list the kinds of things
that are not allowed as the operand of a
type_conversion,
except in a NOTE.
71.i
The rules in this clause subsume the rules for
"parameters of the form of a type conversion," and have been
generalized to cover the use of a type conversion as a
name.
Incompatibilities With Ada 95
71.j/2
{
AI95-00246-01}
Amendment Correction:
Conversions between unrelated array types that are limited or (for view
conversions) might be by-reference types are now illegal. The representations
of two such arrays may differ, making the conversions impossible. We
make the check here, because legality should not be based on representation
properties. Such conversions are likely to be rare, anyway. There is
a potential that this change would make a working program illegal (if
the types have the same representation).
71.k/2
{
AI95-00363-01}
If a discriminated full type has a partial view
(private type) that is constrained, we do not allow conversion between
access-to-unconstrained and access-to-constrained subtypes designating
the type. Ada 95 allowed this conversion and the declaration of various
access subtypes, requiring that the designated object be constrained
and thus making details of the implementation of the private type visible
to the client of the private type. See 4.8
for more on this topic.
Extensions to Ada 95
71.l/2
{
AI95-00230-01}
Conversion rules for universal_access
were defined. These allow the use of anonymous access values in equality
tests (see 4.5.2), and also allow the use
of null in type conversions and other contexts that do not provide
a single expected type.
71.m/2
{
AI95-00384-01}
A type conversion from an access-to-discriminated
and unconstrained object to an access-to-discriminated and constrained
one is allowed. Ada 95 only allowed the reverse conversion, which was
weird and asymmetric. Of course, a constraint check will be performed
for this conversion.
Wording Changes from Ada 95
71.n/2
{
8652/0017}
{
AI95-00184-01}
Corrigendum: Wording was added to ensure
that view conversions are constrained, and that a tagged view conversion
has a tagged object. Both rules are needed to avoid having a way to change
the discriminants of a constrained object.
71.o/2
{
8652/0008}
{
AI95-00168-01}
Corrigendum: Wording was added to ensure
that the aliased status of array components cannot change in a view conversion.
This rule was needed to avoid having a way to change the discriminants
of an aliased object. This rule was repealed later, as Ada 2005 allows
changing the discriminants of an aliased object.
71.p/2
71.q/2
{
AI95-00251-01}
The organization of the legality rules was changed,
both to make it clearer, and to eliminate an unintentional incompatibility
with Ada 83. The old organization prevented type conversions between
some types that were related by derivation (which Ada 83 always allowed).
71.r/3
{
AI95-00330-01}
{
AI05-0005-1}
Clarified that an untagged type conversion appearing
as a generic actual parameter for a generic in out formal parameter
is not a view conversion (and thus is illegal). This confirms the ACATS
tests, so all implementations already follow this interpretation intepretation.
71.s/2
{
AI95-00363-01}
Rules added by the Corrigendum to eliminate problems
with discriminants of aliased components changing were removed, as we
now generally allow discriminants of aliased components to be changed.
71.t/2
{
AI95-00392-01}
Accessibility checks on conversions involving types
with anonymous access components were added. These components have the
level of the type, and conversions can be between types at different
levels, which could cause dangling access values in the absence of such
checks.
Inconsistencies With Ada 2005
71.u/3
{
AI05-0148-1}
A stand-alone object of an
anonymous access-to-object type now has dynamic accessibility. Normally,
this will make programs legal that were illegal in Ada 2005. However,
it is possible that a program that previously raised Program_Error now
will not. It is very unlikely that an existing program intentionally
depends on the exception being raised; the change is more likely to fix
bugs than introduce them.
Wording Changes from Ada 2005
71.v/3
{
AI05-0115-1}
Correction: Clarified that a root numeric
type is not considered a common ancestor for a conversion.
71.w/3
{
AI05-0153-3}
Added rules so that predicate aspects (see 3.2.4)
are enforced on subtype conversion.
Ada 2005 and 2012 Editions sponsored in part by Ada-Europe