I'm kinda new with Ada and recently got an error that I don't seem to know how to solve.
I have the following code:
data.ads
with Text_IO; use text_io;
with ada.Integer_Text_IO; use ada.Integer_Text_IO;
package data is
type file is private;
type file_set is array (Integer range <>) of file;
procedure file_Print (T : in out file); --Not used
private
type file is record
start, deadline : integer;
end record;
end data;
Main.adb
with ada.Integer_Text_IO; use ada.Integer_Text_IO;
procedure Main is
Num_files: integer:=3;
Files:file_set(1..Num_files);
begin
Files(1):=(2,10); -- Expected private type "file" defined at data.ads
for i in 1..Num_Files loop
Put(integer'Image(i));
New_Line;
data.File_Print(Files(i));
But I'm getting this error Expected private type "file" defined at data.ads
How can I access the file type and declare a new array of values in main?
That's right - you don't get to see or manipulate what's inside a private type. That would be breaking encapsulation. Bugs and security risks follow.
You can only interact with a private type via its methods : functions and procedures declared in the package where it's declared.
Now file_set is NOT a private type (you might consider making it private later, for better encapsulation, but for now ....) you can index it to access a file within it (using one of those procedures).
Files(1):=(2,10);
As you want to create a file here, you need a method to create a file ... a bit similar to a constructor in C++, but really more like the Object Factory design pattern. Add this to the package:
function new_file(start, deadline : integer) return file;
And implement it in the package body:
package body data is
function new_file(start, deadline : integer) return file is
begin
-- check these values are valid so we can guarantee a proper file
-- I have NO idea what start, deadline mean, so write your own checks!
-- also there are better ways, using preconditions in Ada-2012
-- without writing explicit checks, but this illustrates the idea
if deadline < NOW or start < 0 then
raise Program_Error;
end if;
return (start => start, deadline => deadline);
end new_file;
procedure file_Print (T : in out file) is ...
end package body;
and that gives the users of your package permission to write
Files(1):= new_file(2,10);
Files(2):= new_file(start => 3, deadline => 15);
but if they attempt to create garbage to exploit your system
Files(3):= new_file(-99,-10); -- Oh no you don't!
this is the ONLY way to create a file, so they can't bypass your checks.
Related
I recently started learning Ada. I want to see if there's a possibility in creating a Boost::Statechart-like framework in Ada. To do this I need a record structure with a constant access-to-object-of-parent-type component, like a tree node that statically points to another tree node, and the parent pointer must not be changed at all times. Something like this:
-- Not working sample
type Node_T is record
Parent : constant access Node_T;
-- error: constant components are not permitted
end record;
-- I wish to create objects of this type like this
Top_Node : Node_T (null);
Child1_Node : Node_T (Top_Node'Access);
Child2_Node : Node_T (Top_Node'Access);
It seems that constant member fields are not supported in Ada. So I resorted to using access discriminants:
-- Not working sample
type Node_T (Parent : access Node_T) is null record;
-- error: type declaration cannot refer to itself
However, using named-access-type as discriminant works
type Node_T;
type Ref_Node_T is access all Node_T;
type Node_T (Parent : Ref_Node_T) is null record;
However, from what I learned this causes the life-time of Node_T objects to be bound to that of a Ref_Node_T object, rather than another parent Node_T object. Is this true?
Are there any better ways of implementing what I need?
An alternate approach to creating a finite state machine is described in https://www.sigada.org/ada_letters/june2000/sanden.pdf
This solution uses a combination of protected objects and tasks to implement the finite state machine.
An alternate alternate solution for FSM is to use enumerations and arrays, and if you're going to need more than one, generic.
Generic
Type State is (<>); -- Any discrete type.
Type Event is (<>);
Package Finite_State_Machine_Domain is
Type Domain is Array(State, Event) of State;
Generic
Start,
Error : State;
Package Finite_State_Machine is
Type State_Machine is private;
Function Create (State_Map : Domain) return State_Machine;
Function Get_State (Object : in State_Machine) return State;
Procedure Send_Event(Object : in out State_Machine; Transition : in Event);
Private
Type State_Machine is record
Current : State := Start;
State_Map : Domain := (Others => Error);
End record;
End Finite_State_Machine;
End Finite_State_Machine_Domain;
Package Body Finite_State_Machine_Domain is
Package Body Finite_State_Machine is
Function Create (State_Map : Domain) return State_Machine is
( State_Machine'(State_Map => State_Map, Others => <>) );
Function Get_State (Object : in State_Machine) return State is
( Object.Current );
Procedure Send_Event(Object : in out State_Machine; Transition : in Event) is
Begin
if Object.Current /= Error then
Object.Current:= Object.State_Map(Object.Current, Transition);
end if;
End Send_Event;
End Finite_State_Machine;
End Finite_State_Machine_Domain;
I have the following code, related to the dining philosopher problem. I am very new to Ada so am not sure about how to implement the Id_Dispenser package.
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
with Id_Dispenser;
with Semaphores; use Semaphores;
procedure Philos is
No_of_Philos : constant Positive := 5; -- Number of philosophers
Meditation : constant Duration := 0.0;
type Table_Ix is mod No_of_Philos;
Forks : array (Table_Ix) of Binary_Semaphore (Initially_Available => True);
package Index_Dispenser is new Id_Dispenser (Element => Table_Ix);
use Index_Dispenser;
task type Philo;
task body Philo is
Philo_Nr : Table_Ix; -- Philisopher number
begin
Dispenser.Draw_Id (Id => Philo_Nr);
Put_Line ("Philosopher" & Table_Ix'Image (Philo_Nr) & " looks for forks.");
Forks (Philo_Nr).Wait; delay Meditation; Forks (Philo_Nr + 1).Wait;
Put_Line ("Philosopher" & Table_Ix'Image (Philo_Nr) & " eats.");
Forks (Philo_Nr).Signal; Forks (Philo_Nr + 1).Signal;
Put_Line ("Philosopher" & Table_Ix'Image (Philo_Nr) & " dropped forks.");
end Philo;
Table : array (Table_Ix) of Philo; pragma Unreferenced (Table);
begin
null;
end Philos;
I have implemented the following semaphore, which I think should be correct
package body semaphores is
protected body Binary_Semaphore is
entry Wait when Count > 0 is
begin
Count := Count - 1;
end Wait;
entry Release when Count < 1 is
begin
Count := Count + 1;
end Signal
end Binary_Semaphore;
end semaphores;
What does the Id_Dispenser need?
Looking at your code,
type Table_Ix is mod No_of_Philos;
...
package Index_Dispenser is new Id_Dispenser (Element => Table_Ix);
we can tell that Id_Dispenser is a generic package with a formal type named Element, and that the formal type is modular:
generic
type Element is mod <>;
package Id_Dispenser is
This
Philo_Nr : Table_Ix; -- Philisopher number
begin
Dispenser.Draw_Id (Id => Philo_Nr);
tells us that Id_Dispenser has some sort of component called Dispenser with a subprogram Draw_Id with an out parameter named Id which returns an Element.
Now, since this is a concurrent program, I'm going to guess that Dispenser is a protected object:
protected Dispenser is
procedure Draw_Id (Id : out Element);
private
...
end Dispenser;
The private part could simply be an array of Boolean indexed by Element,
Available : array (Element) of Boolean := (others => True);
but unfortunately you can't have an anonymous array as a component, so you need a proper type, giving
generic
type Element is mod <>;
package Id_Dispenser is
type Availability is array (Element) of Boolean;
protected Dispenser is
procedure Draw_Id (Id : out Element);
private
Available : Availability := (others => True);
end Dispenser;
end Id_Dispenser;
I'm not happy that the type Availability is visible, but the package now just needs implementing (!)
We could make Availability invisible by making Id_Dispenser.Dispenser a package, with Availability and the actual PO declared in the body. But that may be getting a little too purist for Ben’s context.
Firstly, you shouldn't really shorten identifiers, so you should have task type Philosophers... You can always use a renaming later on.
Shouldn't you model the forks and the philosophers? Each Philosopher as a task (hint array of task types).
Look at protected objects to model the forks.
Id_dispenser needs to implement a Draw_ID method.
Since the Dispenser variable is not declared here, it must presumably be declared in Id_dispenser. This hidden declaration is not very good style, as you can see it causes confusion; I would use a qualified name to make it obvious where it came from, as Index_Dispenser.Dispenser (which can then be renamed to reduce clutter in the rest of the code).
Id_dispenser may also need to provide an object factory method to initialise the Dispenser variable at its declaration.
Or, the intent may be that Dispenser will be the only one of its type, in which case you can treat Id_dispenser as a singleton package with Dispenser as the only object.
I have an unusual situation in which elaboration code is simply not being executed at all. This is not an elaboration order issue, but rather an elaboration at all issue.
The problem is that I don't "with" the unit in question whatsoever, yet in theory it should still be accessible, as long as its elaboration occurs.
Of course I could just add a useless "with" for the unit in question, but in my real use case there are a large number of units that I would have to do that with.
My question is if there is any way either in the code, through pragmas, in the gpr project file, or through command-line switches that I could force the compiler to include a file even though it thinks the file isn't referenced?
Here is a minimal working example:
as.ads:
package As is
type A is tagged null record;
type Nothing is null record;
function Create (Ignored : not null access Nothing) return A;
function Image (From : A) return String;
end As;
as.adb:
package body As is
function Create (Ignored : not null access Nothing) return A is
(null record);
function Image (From : A) return String is ("A");
end As;
finder.ads:
with Ada.Tags;
package Finder is
procedure Register (Name : String; Tag : Ada.Tags.Tag);
function Find (Name : String; Default : Ada.Tags.Tag) return Ada.Tags.Tag;
end Finder;
finder.adb:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
package body Finder is
type Name_Tag (Size : Natural) is
record
Name : String (1 .. Size);
To : Ada.Tags.Tag;
end record;
package Name_Tag_Vectors is new Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors (Positive, Name_Tag);
Name_Tags : Name_Tag_Vectors.Vector := Name_Tag_Vectors.Empty_Vector;
procedure Register (Name : String; Tag : Ada.Tags.Tag) is begin
Name_Tags.Append ((Name'Length, Name, Tag));
end Register;
function Find (Name : String; Default : Ada.Tags.Tag) return Ada.Tags.Tag is begin
for Tag of Name_Tags loop
if Tag.Name = Name then
return Tag.To;
end if;
end loop;
return Default;
end Find;
end Finder;
bs.ads:
with As;
package Bs is
type B is new As.A with null record;
function Create (Ignored : not null access As.Nothing) return B;
function Image (From : B) return String;
end Bs;
bs.adb:
with Finder;
package body Bs is
function Create (Ignored : not null access As.Nothing) return B is
(As.Create (Ignored) with null record);
function Image (From : B) return String is ("B");
begin
Finder.Register ("B", B'Tag);
end Bs;
test.adb:
with As; use As;
-- with Bs; -- (uncommenting this line solves my problem, but what if I had the rest of the alphabet?)
with Finder;
with Ada.Tags.Generic_Dispatching_Constructor;
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Test is
function Constructor is new Ada.Tags.Generic_Dispatching_Constructor (
T => A,
Parameters => Nothing,
Constructor => Create);
Nada : aliased Nothing := (null record);
What : A'Class := Constructor (Finder.Find ("B", A'Tag), Nada'Access);
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line (What.Image);
end Test;
The compiler thinks your package Bs isn't referenced because it isn't. You don't have a with clause for it, so it's not part of your program.
A simple example:
a.ads
package A is
procedure Blah;
end A;
a.adb
with Ada.Text_IO;
package body A is
procedure Blah is begin null; end Blah;
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line("Elaborate A");
end A;
b.ads
package B is
procedure Blah;
end B;
b.adb
with Ada.Text_IO;
package body B is
procedure Blah is begin null; end Blah;
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line("Elaborate B");
end B;
main.adb
with Ada.Text_IO;
with A;
procedure Main is
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line("Main");
end Main;
When I run main, it prints
Elaborate A
Main
It doesn't print Elaborate B because that package isn't part of the program; it's just a couple of source files in the same directory.
The obvious solution is to add the with clauses.
I don't know whether there's a less obvious solution. If there is, it's probably compiler-specific. But I'm not sure why a compiler would have a feature that lets you incorporate an otherwise unused package into a program.
What I’ve done (e.g. here ff) is to actually reference the units in the main program (with pragma Unreferenced to prevent warnings).
Alternatively, you could have a package e.g. Required_Units with all the necessary withs included, and then with that from the main program.
Even if there was some alternative process, you’d have to tell it what units you need to have included; might as well go with the flow and do it in Ada!
Since the package Bs is invisible to your program, so is the type B.
So the next question is: why do you need to register type B if it is not used anywhere?
If an Ada compiler did elaborate all units (packages or standalone subprograms) that are irrelevant to a main program, but are visible through source path, it would become really messy!...
I'm moving my first steps with Ada, and I'm finding that I struggle to understand how to do common, even banal, operations that in other languages would be immediate.
In this case, I defined the following task type (and access type so I can create new instances):
task type Passenger(
Name : String_Ref;
Workplace_Station : String_Ref;
Home_Station : String_Ref
);
type Passenger_Ref is access all Passenger;
As you can see, it's a simple task that has 3 discriminants that can be passed to it when creating an instance. String_Ref is defined as:
type String_Ref is access all String;
and I use it because apparently you cannot use "normal" types as task discriminants, only references or primitive types.
So I want to create an instance of such a task, but whatever I do, I get an error. I cannot pass the strings directly by simply doing:
Passenger1 := new Passenger(Name => "foo", Workplace_Station => "man", Home_Station => "bar");
Because those are strings and not references to strings, fair enough.
So I tried:
task body Some_Task_That_Tries_To_Use_Passenger is
Passenger1 : Passenger_Ref;
Name1 : aliased String := "Foo";
Home1 : aliased String := "Man";
Work1 : aliased String := "Bar";
begin
Passenger1 := new Passenger(Name => Name1'Access, Workplace_Station => Work1'Access, Home_Station => Home1'Access);
But this doesn't work either, as, from what I understand, the Home1/Name1/Work1 variables are local to task Some_Task_That_Tries_To_Use_Passenger and so cannot be used by Passenger's "constructor".
I don't understand how I have to do it to be honest. I've used several programming languages in the past, but I never had so much trouble passing a simple String to a constructor, I feel like a total idiot but I don't understand why such a common operation would be so complicated, I'm sure I'm approaching the problem incorrectly, please enlighten me and show me the proper way to do this, because I'm going crazy :D
Yes, I agree it is a serious problem with the language that discriminates of task and record types have to be discrete. Fortunately there is a simple solution for task types -- the data can be passed via an "entry" point.
with Ada.Strings.Unbounded; use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
procedure Main is
task type Task_Passenger is
entry Construct(Name, Workplace, Home : in String);
end Passenger;
task body Task_Passenger is
N, W, H : Unbounded_String;
begin
accept Construct(Name, Workplace, Home : in String) do
N := To_Unbounded_String(Name);
W := To_Unbounded_String(Workplace);
H := To_Unbounded_String(Home);
end Construct;
--...
end Passenger;
Passenger : Task_Passenger;
begin
Passenger.Construct("Any", "length", "strings!");
--...
end Main;
Ada doesn't really have constructors. In other languages, a constructor is, in essence, a method that takes parameters and has a body that does stuff with those parameters. Trying to get discriminants to serve as a constructor doesn't work well, since there's no subprogram body to do anything with the discriminants. Maybe it looks like it should, because the syntax involves a type followed by a list of discriminant values in parentheses and separated by commas. But that's a superficial similarity. The purpose of discriminants isn't to emulate constructors.
For a "normal" record type, the best substitute for a constructor is a function that returns an object of the type. (Think of this as similar to using a static "factory method" instead of a constructor in a language like Java.) The function can take String parameters or parameters of any other type.
For a task type, it's a little trickier, but you can write a function that returns an access to a task.
type Passenger_Acc is access all Passenger;
function Make_Passenger (Name : String;
Workplace_Station : String;
Home_Station : String) return Passenger_Acc;
To implement it, you'll need to define an entry in the Passenger task (see Roger Wilco's answer), and then you can use it in the body:
function Make_Passenger (Name : String;
Workplace_Station : String;
Home_Station : String) return Passenger_Acc is
Result : Passenger_Acc;
begin
Result := new Passenger;
Result.Construct (Name, Workplace_Station, Home_Station);
return Result;
end Make_Passenger;
(You have to do this by returning a task access. I don't think you can get the function to return a task itself, because you'd have to use an extended return to set up the task object and the task object isn't activated until after the function returns and thus can't accept an entry.)
You say
"I don't understand how I have to do it to be honest. I've used several programming languages in the past, but I never had so much trouble passing a simple String to a constructor, I feel like a total idiot but I don't understand why such a common operation would be so complicated, I'm sure I'm approaching the problem incorrectly, please enlighten me and show me the proper way to do this, because I'm going crazy :D"
Ada's access types are often a source of confusion. The main issue is that Ada doesn't have automatic garbage collection, and wants to ensure you can't suffer from the problem of returning pointers to local variables. The combination of these two results in a curious set of rules that force you to design your solution carefully.
If you are sure your code is good, then you can always used 'Unrestricted_Access on an aliased String. This puts all the responsibility on you to ensure the accessed variable won't disappear from underneath the task though.
It doesn't have to be all that complicated. You can use an anonymous access type and allocate the strings on demand, but please consider if you really want the strings to be discriminants.
Here is a complete, working example:
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure String_Discriminants is
task type Demo (Name : not null access String);
task body Demo is
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line ("Demo task named """ & Name.all & """.");
exception
when others =>
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line ("Demo task terminated by an exception.");
end Demo;
Run_Demo : Demo (new String'("example 1"));
Second_Demo : Demo (new String'("example 2"));
begin
null;
end String_Discriminants;
Another option is to declare the strings as aliased constants in a library level package, but then you are quite close to just having an enumerated discriminant, and should consider that option carefully before discarding it.
I think another solution would be the following:
task body Some_Task_That_Tries_To_Use_Passenger is
Name1 : aliased String := "Foo";
Home1 : aliased String := "Man";
Work1 : aliased String := "Bar";
Passenger1 : aliased Passenger(
Name => Name1'Access,
Workplace_Station => Work1'Access,
Home_Station => Home1'Access
);
begin
--...
I am attempting to understand how to fix this circular dependency. All the examples I can find online suggest using a limited with, but then they demonstrate the use with two basic types, whereas this is a bit more advanced. The circular dependency is between the two files below. I thought it was between package Chessboard ... and the Piece type, but now I am not so sure. Attempting to put the package Chessboard ... line within chess_types.ads after the Piece type is declared and removing the use and with of Chessboard results in an error: this primitive operation is declared too late for the Move procedure. I am stuck on how to get out of this dependency. Any help would be much appreciated!
Thank you
chessboard.ads:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
with Chess_Types;
use Chess_Types;
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece'Class);
chess_types.ads:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
with Chessboard;
use Chessboard;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is tagged
record
Name : String (1 .. 3) := " ";
Alive : Boolean := False;
Team : Color;
Coordinate : Integer;
end record;
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in Vector; P: in Piece; Move_To: in Integer);
end Chess_Types;
More Code for question in comments:
Chess_Types.Piece_Types.ads:
package Chess_Types.Piece_Types is
type Pawn is new Piece with
record
First_Move : Boolean := True;
end record;
overriding
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in CB_Vector'Class; Po: in Pawn; Move_To: in Board_Index);
-- Other piece types declared here
end Chess_Types.Piece_Types;
Chess_Types.Piece_Types.adb:
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
package body Chess_Types.Piece_Types is
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in CB_Vector'Class; Po: in Pawn; Move_To: in Board_Index) is
Index_From, Index_To : Board_Index;
Move_From : Board_Index := Po.Coordinate;
begin
-- Obtain locations of Pawn to move from (Index_From) and to (Index_To)
-- in terms of the single dimension vector
for I in Board.First_Index .. Board.Last_Index loop
if Board.Element(I).Coordinate = Move_From then
Index_From := I;
end if;
if Board.Element(I).Coordinate = Move_To then
Index_To := I;
end if;
end loop;
-- Determine if the requested move is legal, and if so, do the move.
-- More possibilties to be entered, very primitive for simple checking.
if Move_To - Move_From = 2 and then Po.First_Move = True then
Board.Swap(I => Index_From, J => Index_To); -- "actual for "Container" must be a variable"
Board.Element(Index_From).First_Move := False; -- "no selector for "First_Move" for type "Piece'Class"
elsif Move_To - Po.Coordinate = 1 then
Board.Swap(Index_From, Index_To); -- "actual for "Container" must be a variable"
end if;
-- Test to make sure we are in the right Move_Piece procedure
Put_Line("1");
end Move_Piece;
-- Other piece type move_piece procedures defined here
end Chess_types.Piece_Types;
As a note to understand further, the Coordinate component of each piece correspond to ICCF numeric notation, which is two digits, so there needs to be some type of conversion between the vector and the ICCF notation, hence the reason for the whole for loop at the start.
This is a tough one. It looks like limited with and generics don't play nice together. The only way to make it work is to go back to using your own access type:
with Ada.Containers.Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
limited with Chess_Types;
use Chess_Types;
package Chessboard_Package is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Piece_Acc is access all Piece'Class;
package Chessboard is new Vectors(Board_Index, Piece_Acc);
end Chessboard_Package;
I had to put the instantiation into a new package, and move the Board_Index there too. Also, I changed it to Vectors since Piece_Acc is a definite type and there's no point in using Indefinite_Vectors. But in any event, this defeats the purpose. I'm just not sure Ada gives you a way to do what you want with two packages like this.
Even doing it in one package is not easy:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is tagged record ... end record;
type CB_Vector is tagged;
procedure Move_Piece (Board : in CB_Vector'Class;
P : in Piece;
Move_To : in Board_Index);
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece'Class);
type CB_Vector is new Chessboard.Vector with null record;
end Chess_Types;
This compiles, but I had to add extra stuff to get around some of the language rules (in particular, when you instantiate a generic, that "freezes" all prior tagged types so that you can no longer declare a new primitive operation of the type); also, I had to make the Board parameter a classwide type to avoid running into the rule about primitive operations of multiple tagged types.
As I understand it, this will do what you want.
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is abstract tagged
record
Name : String (1 .. 3) := " ";
Alive : Boolean := False;
Team : Color;
Coordinate : Board_Index;
end record;
type Piece_Ptr is access all Piece'Class;
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece_Ptr);
procedure Move_Piece (Board : in Chessboard.Vector;
P : in Piece'Class;
Move_To : in Board_Index) is abstract;
end Chess_Types;
NOTES:
Piece is now abstract, as is the Move_Piece method. This will mean you now need to derive your other piece types (package piece_type-rook.ads, with a move_piece method for rook) etc...
Chessboard now contains pointers (Class wide pointers), beware allocating, deallocating, deep copy, shallow copy issues when using it.
You should now be able to call Move_Piece on any dereference of a piece_ptr and have it dispatch to the correct method.
The Move_To parameter is now the same type as the Board_Index. (Coordinate also brought in line) -- this seems a bit clunky, perhaps rethink this. (Row & Column Indices defining a 2D array perhaps? --No need for Indefinite_Vectors)
To answer the second question in the comment:
To use First_Move, the procedure has to know that it's a Pawn. If the object is declared with type Piece'Class, you can't access components that are defined only for one of the derived types. (That's true in most OO languages.) This may indicate a flaw in your design; if you have a procedure that takes a Piece'Class as a parameter, but you want to do something that makes sense only for a Pawn, then maybe you should add another operation to your Piece that does a default action for most pieces (perhaps it does nothing) and then override it for Pawn. Other possibilities are to use a type conversion:
procedure Something (P : Piece'Class) is ...
if Pawn(P).First_Move then ...
which will raise an exception if P isn't a Pawn. If you want to test first, you can say "if P in Pawn". I sometimes write code like:
if P in Pawn then
declare
P_Pawn : Pawn renames Pawn(P);
begin
if P_Pawn.First_Move then ...
end;
end if;
But defining a new polymorphic operation is preferable. (Note: I haven't tested the above code, hope I didn't make a syntax error somewhere.)