Contents   Index   Search   Previous   Next

8.5.1 Object Renaming Declarations

1
   [An object_renaming_declaration is used to rename an object.]

Syntax

2
object_renaming_declaration ::= defining_identifier : subtype_mark renames object_name;

Name Resolution Rules

3
   The type of the object_name shall resolve to the type determined by the subtype_mark.
3.a
Reason: A previous version of Ada 9X used the usual ``expected type'' wording:
``The expected type for the object_name is that determined by the subtype_mark.''
We changed it so that this would be illegal:
3.b
X: T;
Y: T'Class renames X; -- Illegal!
3.c
When the above was legal, it was unclear whether Y was of type T or T'Class. Note that we still allow this:
3.d
Z: T'Class := ...;
W: T renames F(Z);
3.e
where F is a function with a controlling parameter and result. This is admittedly a bit odd.
3.f
Note that the matching rule for generic formal parameters of mode in out was changed to keep it consistent with the rule for renaming. That makes the rule different for in vs. in out.

Legality Rules

4
   The renamed entity shall be an object.
5/1
     {8652/0017} The renamed entity shall not be a subcomponent that depends on discriminants of a variable whose nominal subtype is unconstrained, unless this subtype is indefinite, or the variable is aliased. A slice of an array shall not be renamed if this restriction disallows renaming of the array. In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply, these rules apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. These rules also apply for a renaming that appears in the body of a generic unit, with the additional requirement that even if the nominal subtype of the variable is indefinite, its type shall not be a descendant of an untagged generic formal derived type.
5.a
Reason: This prevents renaming of subcomponents that might disappear, which might leave dangling references. Similar restrictions exist for the Access attribute.
5.a.1/1
{8652/0017} The "recheck on instantiation" and "assume-the-worst in the body" restrictions on generics are necessary to avoid renaming of components which could disappear even when the nominal subtype would prevent the problem:
5.a.2/1
type T1 (D1 : Boolean) is
   record
      case D1 is
         when False =>
            C1 : Integer;
         when True =>
            null;
         end case;
      end record;
5.a.3/1
generic
   type F is new T1;
   X : in out F;
package G is
   C1_Ren : Integer renames X.C1;
end G;
5.a.4/1
type T2 (D2 : Boolean := True) is new T1 (D1 => D2);

Y : T2;

package I is new G (T2, Y);

Y := (D1 => True); -- Oops!  What happened to I.C1_Ren?
5.b
Implementation Note: Note that if an implementation chooses to deallocate-then-reallocate on assignment_statements assigning to unconstrained definite objects, then it cannot represent renamings and access values as simple addresses, because the above rule does not apply to all components of such an object.
5.c
Ramification: If it is a generic formal object, then the assume-the-best or assume-the-worst rules are applied as appropriate.

Static Semantics

6
   An object_renaming_declaration declares a new view [of the renamed object] whose properties are identical to those of the renamed view. [Thus, the properties of the renamed object are not affected by the renaming_declaration. In particular, its value and whether or not it is a constant are unaffected; similarly, the constraints that apply to an object are not affected by renaming (any constraint implied by the subtype_mark of the object_renaming_declaration is ignored).]
6.a
Discussion: Because the constraints are ignored, it is a good idea to use the nominal subtype of the renamed object when writing an object_renaming_declaration.

Examples

7
   Example of renaming an object:
8
declare
   L : Person renames Leftmost_Person; -- see 3.10.1
begin
   L.Age := L.Age + 1;
end;

Wording Changes from Ada 83

8.a
The phrase ``subtype ... as defined in a corresponding object declaration, component declaration, or component subtype indication,'' from RM83-8.5(5), is incorrect in Ada 95; therefore we removed it. It is incorrect in the case of an object with an indefinite unconstrained nominal subtype.

Contents   Index   Search   Previous   Next   Legal