Given below is some code in ada
with TYPE_VECT_B; use TYPE_VECT_B;
Package TEST01 is
procedure TEST01
( In_State : IN VECT_B ;
Out_State : IN OUT VECT_B );
function TEST02
( In_State : IN VECT_B ) return Boolean ;
end TEST01;
The TYPE_VECT_B package specification and body is also defined below
Package TYPE_VECT_B is
type VECT_B is array (INTEGER range <>) OF BOOLEAN ;
rounded_data : float ;
count : integer ;
trace : integer ;
end TYPE_VECT_B;
Package BODY TYPE_VECT_B is
begin
null;
end TYPE_VECT_B;
What does the variable In_State and Out_State actually mean? I think In_State means input variable. I just get confused to what actually Out_State means?
An in parameter can be read but not written by the subprogram. in is the default. Prior to Ada 2012, functions were only allowed to have in parameters. The actual parameter is an expression.
An out parameter implies that the previous value is of no interest. The subprogram is expected to write to the parameter. After writing to the parameter, the subprogram can read back what it has written. On exit the actual parameter receives the value written to it (there are complications in this area!). The actual parameter must be a variable.
An in out parameter is like an out parameter except that the previous value is of interest and can be read by the subprogram before assignment. For example,
procedure Add (V : Integer; To : in out Integer; Limited_To : Integer)
is
begin
-- Check that the result wont be too large. This involves reading
-- the initial value of the 'in out' parameter To, which would be
-- wrong if To was a mere 'out' parameter (it would be
-- uninitialized).
if To + V > Limited_To then
To := Limited_To;
else
To := To + V;
end if;
end Add;
Basically, every parameter to a function or procedure has a direction to it. The options are in, out, in out (both), or access. If you don't see one of those, then it defaults to in.
in means data can go into the subroutine from the caller (via the parameter). You are allowed to read from in parameters inside the routine. out means data can come out of the routine that way, and thus you are allowed to assign values to the parameter inside the routine. In general, how the compiler accomplishes the data passing is up to the compiler, which is in accord with Ada's general philosophy of allowing you to specify what you want done, not how you want it done.
access is a special case, and is roughly like putting a "*" in your parameter definition in Cish languages.
The next question folks usually have is "if I pass something large as an in parameter, is it going to push all that data on the stack or something?" The answer is "no", unless your compiler writers are unconsionably stupid. Every Ada compiler I know of under the hood passes objects larger than fit in a machine register by reference. It is the compiler, not the details of your parameter passing mechanisim, that enforces not writing data back out of the routine. Again, you tell Ada what you want done, it figures out the most efficient way to do it.
Related
You can assign to a variable by having a function return a value to it:
My_Int : Integer := My_Math_Func [(optional params)];
Or you can do it like this with a procedure (assuming My_Int has already been declared):
My_Math_Proc ([optional params;] [in] out My_Int);
Obviously a procedure can't initialize a variable like the function does in the first example, but I'm hoping for some concrete, practical rules on when and why to pick one over the other.
Two to get you started...
When more than one result is to be returned, a procedure with several OUT parameters is often a good choice.
When the size of the object is unknown prior to the subprogram call, an OUT parameter cannot be used because it would have to be declared precisely the right size, but a function return can set the size by initialising the variable in the caller. This is commonly used with a variable declared in a Declare block, which can hold a different sized string each time it is invoked.
This example shows the variable "text" initialised by calling a Read_File function, to hold the contents of a different file on each iteration of the loop. Safe, no "malloc" or "free" or pointers necessary. (Filename is an array of filenames in this example)
for i in 1 .. last_file loop
declare
text : String := Read_File(Filename(i));
-- the size of "text" is determined by the file contents
begin
-- process the text here.
for j in text'range loop
if text(j) = '*' then
...
end loop;
end
end loop;
Edit : And I suppose I'd better mention the underlying mathematical principle, since Ada is based more closely on mathematical logic than many other languages.
Functions and procedures are both subprograms, but for different purposes:
a function is an abstraction over an expression : like a mathematical operator (and an operator in Ada is just a function). Ideally, it provides a result from a number of operands and nothing else, leaving them unchanged and having no state and no side effects. This ideal is called a "pure function" (and applying "pragma pure" asks the compiler to check its purity) - similar restrictions apply in functional programming (FP) languages. Pure functions allow a whole bunch of optimisation (because reordering them doesn't change results). In practice Ada is not that strict, allowing impure functions too.
a procedure is an abstraction over a statement. It generally has some physical effect (such as changing state) since it doesn't deliver a result.
So the logical separation between expressions and statements is carried over into subprograms (abstractions) as the separation between functions and procedures.
And this is probably the best way to decide which to use.
Brian Drummond already answered your question directly, but I wanted to add some additional info: If your type has some sort of initializing procedure, in Ada2005/Ada2012 you can convert it to an initializing function using extended return syntax. It will even work for limited types.
Say you have a package with a type like this:
package Example is
type My_Type is limited private;
procedure Initialize(Self : in out My_Type; Value : Integer);
procedure Print(Self : My_Type);
private
type My_Type is limited record
Value : Integer := 0;
end record;
end Example;
package body Example is
procedure Initialize(Self : in out My_Type; Value : Integer) is
begin
Self.Value := Value;
end Initialize;
procedure Print(Self : My_Type) is
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(Self.Value'Image);
end Print;
end Example;
You can then make your own initializing function out of that procedure doing something like this:
function Make_My_Type (Value : Integer) return Example.My_Type is
begin
return Result : Example.My_Type do
Example.Initialize(Result,Value);
end return;
end Make_My_Type;
and you can initialize variables easily using the procedure hidden in your function underneath:
procedure Test
Thing : Example.My_Type := Make_My_Type(21);
begin
Example.Print(Thing);
end Test;
This is different than just making a variable and returning it. You are not able to do that with a limited type, but with extended return syntax, you can do it for any type.
Here is some additional info for extended return statements as well.
In Java or C#, you would often have class members that are final or readonly - they are set once and then never touched again. They can hold different values for different instances of the class.
Is there something similar in Ada? I've tried to create something similar in Ada thusly:
package MyPackage is
type MyObject is limited new OtherPackage.Object with private;
....
private
type MyObject (...) is limited new OtherPackage.Object with
record
M_MyField : Integer := 10;
M_MyConstantFactory : constant Factory.Object'Class := new Factory.Object;
end record;
end MyPackage;
This fails on the declaration of M_MyConstantFactory saying constant components are not permitted. Is there a way around this? A colleague suggested declaring it somewhere else in the package, but that would mean a single M_MyConstantFactory shared across all instances, which is not what I want.
Do I need to just accept that it is possible to modify the value once set and manually guard against that happening?
No. Not quite.
If your component is of a discrete type or an access type, you can make it a discriminant, and thus make it immutable.
with Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
procedure Immutable_Components is
type Instance (Immutable : Positive) is null record;
A : Instance := (Immutable => 1);
begin
Ada.Integer_Text_IO.Put (A.Immutable);
-- A.Immutable := 2; -- assignment to discriminant not allowed:
end Immutable_Components;
Before I answer the question, it would probably be helpful to distinguish between Ada and Java/C#'s modeling of objects. In Java, everything is an object, and so all constants have to be final -- in Ada things are a bit different, Ada's object-system ("tagged types" in Ada parlance) is built upon two items: records and type-derivation. This means that, when teaching OOP, we could arrive gradually introducing first type-derivation (eg Type Degree is new Integer;), then records (ie encapsulation), then private-types (ie information-hiding), and finally unifying everything together with tagged-types... all of which I'll assume you are cognizant of.
In Ada, a constant is just that: some object that can be read but [generally] not written to. (Things can get funny with eg memory-mapped IO.) So we could say:
Package Ex1 is
Type Stub1 is private; -- Some type, with almost nothing public.
C1 : Constant Stub1; -- A constant of that type.
Private
Type Stub1 is tagged record
Data_1 : Integer;
Data_2 : Float;
end;
-- And now we can tell the compiler what C1 _is_.
C1: Constant Stub1 := (Data_1 => 3, Data_2 => 1.2);
End Ex1;
That's how we'd make a constant for a tagged type while keeping its implementation details hidden; though, admittedly, we could have exposed everything and gotten rid of the entire private section.
Now we get to an interesting feature of records [and tagged types] called discriminants -- these are kind of like constants, and kind of like generic-types in other languages. With discriminants we could make a message-type that varies in size according to the message-length:
Package Ex2 is
Type Message(Length : Natural) is private; -- A message.
Function Create( Text : String ) return Message;
Private
Type Message(Length : Natural) is record
Data : String(1..Length) := (Others => ' '); -- Defaults to space-filled string.
end;
Function Create( Text : String ) return Message is
( Data => Text, Length => Text'Length );
End Ex2;
Now, in this case, when you do an assignment like X : Message := Create("Steve"); the variavle's type [unconstrained, in this example, becomes constrained in this case to Message(5) (because "Steve" is 5 characters) and so trying to re-assign with a different-sized message-string wouldn't work. (So, while you couldn't say X:= Create("Why") you can say X:= Create("Hello") because the discriminant [Length] here is 5.) -- So, in that manner discriminants can act like constant fields in some cases.
The limited keyword means that the type doesn't have an assignment [but does have initialization], so you could make the entire type behave as a constant; this is different than having the one component be constant though, certainly not as subtle as the distinction between T and T'Class (T'Class is the Type T and all types derived therefrom, where as T is only that type.)
You almost have the general solution (for cases when it can't be a discriminant) already. The type is limited private. Clients of the package can only modify it through the operations the pkg provides. As long as the operations don't modify the field in question, you have what you want (unless I misunderstood and the question is how to prevent yourself from modifying the field in the pkg body).
I am new to IDL and find the KEYWORD_SET difficult to grasp. I understand that it is a go no go switch. I think its the knocking on and off part that I am having difficulty with. I have written a small program to master this as such
Pro get_this_done, keyword1 = keyword1
WW=[3,6,8]
PRINT,'WW'
print,WW
y= WW*3
IF KEYWORD_Set(keyword1) Then BEGIN
print,'y'
print,y
ENDIF
Return
END
WW prints but print, y is restricted by the keyword. How do I knock off the keyword to allow y to print.
Silly little question, but if somebody can indulge me, it would be great.
After compiling the routine, type something like
get_this_done,KEYWORD1=1b
where the b after the one sets the numeric value to a BYTE type integer (also equivalent to TRUE). That should cause the y-variable to be printed to the screen.
The KEYWORD_SET function will return a TRUE for lots of different types of inputs that are basically either defined or not zero. The IF loop executes when the argument is TRUE.
Keywords are simply passed as arguments to the function:
get_this_done, KEYWORD1='whatever'
or also
get_this_done, /KEYWORD1
which will give KEYWORD1 the INT value of 1 inside the function. Inside the function KEYWORD_SET will return 1 (TRUE) when the keyword was passed any kind of value - no matter whether it makes sense or not.
Thus as a side note to the question: It often is advisable to NOT use KEYWORD_SET, but instead resort to a type query:
IF SIZE(variable, /TNAME) EQ 'UNDEFINED' THEN $
variable = 'default value'
It has the advantage that you can actually check for the correct type of the keyword and handle unexpected or even different variable types:
IF SIZE(variable, /TNAME) NE 'LONG' THEN BEGIN
IF SIZE(variable, /TNAME) EQ 'STRING' THEN $
PRINT, "We need a number here... sure that the cast to LONG works?"
variable = LONG(variable)
ENDIF
I created an array like this one:
type coef_list is array(Integer range 0..50) of Integer;
But the message appears when I call this function:
t:= times(r,q); --that multiply two polynoms.
Why? I need a dynamic array? with Ada.Vectors but how to used it? if there is any simple example to guide me, please share? Thx
Ada procedures (and similar for functions) require this structure:
procedure Foo is
-- declarations goes here
begin
-- code goes here
end Foo;
In your code, both polynomials and Main is missing the begin.
You have also put declarations (value1 : integer := 1; etc) after begin in print_polynoms, which is illegal.
Other problems with your code:
You redefine the built-in type String.
The type zero is not defined anywhere.
The type String_Pointer is not defined anywhere.
This syntax makes no sense: type Polynom is new Integer(p,p1,p2,p3,p4,q,q1,q2); And the type Polynom is never used. Why declare it?
The variable zero is not defined anywhere.
Why have an inner procedure Main here? It does nothing anyway. And is never called. Probably better to move print_polynoms out of Main, as an inner function of polynomials directly.
The polynomials procedure does nothing, print_polynoms will never be called.
Also, the code you pasted seems to not be the same as the code you tried to compile. (main is not declared at line 9)
In brief, why doesnt this work:
generic
Max : in Positive;
package Modular_Gen_Issue is
procedure Foo;
private
type Mod_Thing is mod Max; -- NOK
type Int_Thing is new Integer range 0 .. Max; -- OK
end Modular_Gen_Issue;
With compilation:
$ gnatmake modular_gen_issue.ads
gcc-4.4 -c modular_gen_issue.ads
modular_gen_issue.ads:6:26: non-static expression used for modular type bound
modular_gen_issue.ads:6:26: "Max" is not static constant or named number (RM 4.9(5))
gnatmake: "modular_gen_issue.ads" compilation error
$
How can I pass in a single number and use it to define a modular type ?
And yes it has to be a modular type!
Sorry, you can't. Whenever you declare a modular type, the modulus has to be a static value, i.e. a value the compiler can figure out right then and there. And this doesn't work. This is true of many parts of type declarations, especially parts that the compiler needs in order to figure out how many bits an object needs to be, or other features about an object's representation. On the other hand, in Int_Thing, the upper bound of the range doesn't need to be static (the compiler already knows an Int_Thing will be represented the same as an Integer, and the range is used for bounds checking but isn't used to determine how big an Int_Thing will be).
If this is a real-life situation and you need a generic that can handle varying modular types, you might be able make the modular type itself a generic parameter:
generic
type Mod_Thing is mod <>;
package Modular_Gen_Issue is ...
(P.S. The range of Mod_Thing in your example would be 0..Max-1, not 0..Max.)
In addition to what ajb wrote, consider the following usage of your generic package:
procedure Foo (Bar : in Positive) is
package Instance is new Modular_Gen_Issue (Max => Bar);
begin
null;
end Foo;
Here, the package Instance is created with a non-static value that may change with every call to Foo. Because Ada allows this, the compiler must expect any parameter of a generic unit to be non-static. That's why you cannot declare your modular type in there, even though you could instantiate your package with a static value.
Extending ajb's suggestion, you can do:
generic
type Mod_Thing_Base is mod <>;
package Modular_Gen_Issue is
type Mod_Thing is new Mod_Thing_Base;
end Modular_Gen_Issue;
This way, you can define primitive operations of Mod_Thing (which you couldn't do by taking it as parameter directly).