Annotated Ada Reference ManualLegal Information
Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 

8.5.1 Object Renaming Declarations

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

Syntax

2/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00423-01} object_renaming_declaration ::= 
    
defining_identifier : [null_exclusionsubtype_mark renames object_name;
  | defining_identifier : access_definition renames object_name;

Name Resolution Rules

3/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00254-01} {AI95-00409-01} The type of the object_name shall resolve to the type determined by the subtype_mark, or in the case where the type is defined by an access_definition, to an anonymous access type. If the anonymous access type is an access-to-object type, the type of the object_name shall have the same designated type as that of the access_definition. If the anonymous access type is an access-to-subprogram type, the type of the object_name shall have a designated profile that is type conformant with that of the access_definition.
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.
4.1/2
  {AI95-00231-01} {AI95-00409-01} In the case where the type is defined by an access_definition, the type of the renamed object and the type defined by the access_definition:
4.2/2
4.3/2
4.4/2
  {AI95-00423-01} For an object_renaming_declaration with a null_exclusion or an access_definition that has a null_exclusion:
4.5/2
4.6/2
4.a/2
Reason: This rule prevents “lying”. Null must never be the value of an object with an explicit null_exclusion. The first bullet is an assume-the-worst rule which prevents trouble in one obscure case: 
4.b/2
type Acc_I is access Integer;
subtype Acc_NN_I is not null Acc_I;
Obj : Acc_I := null;
4.c/2
generic
   B : in out Acc_NN_I;
package Gen is
   ...
end Gen;
4.d/2
package body Gen is
   D : not null Acc_I renames B;
end Gen;
4.e/2
package Inst is new Gen (B => Obj);
4.f/2
Without the first bullet rule, D would be legal, and contain the value null, because the rule about lying is satisfied for generic matching (Obj matches B; B does not explicitly state not null), Legality Rules are not rechecked in the body of any instance, and the template passes the lying rule as well. The rule is so complex because it has to apply to formals used in bodies of child generics as well as in the bodies of generics.
5/2
{8652/0017} {AI95-00184-01} {AI95-00363-01} 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 constrained by its initial value 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} {AI95-00184-01} 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 := False) 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. 
5.d/2
To be honest: {AI95-00363-01} If renamed entity is a subcomponent that depends on discriminants, and the subcomponent is a dereference of a general access type whose designated type is unconstrained and whose discriminants have defaults, the renaming is illegal. Such a general access type can designate an unconstrained (stack) object. Since such a type might not designate an object constrained by its initial value, the renaming is illegal — the rule says “is” constrained by its initial value, not “might be” constrained by its initial value. No other interpretation makes sense, as we can't have legality depending on something (which object is designated) that is not known at compile-time, and we surely can't allow this for unconstrained objects. The wording of the rule should be much clearer on this point, but this was discovered after the completion of Amendment 1 when it was too late to fix it.

Static Semantics

6/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00409-01} 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 null exclusion or constraints that apply to an object are not affected by renaming (any constraint implied by the subtype_mark or access_definition 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.
6.b/2
{AI95-00409-01} If no null_exclusion is given in the renaming, the object may or may not exclude null. This is similar to the way that constraints need not match, and constant is not specified. The renaming defines a view of the renamed entity, inheriting the original properties. 

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. 

Incompatibilities With Ada 95

8.b/2
{AI95-00363-01} {incompatibilities with Ada 95} Aliased variables are not necessarily constrained in Ada 2005 (see 3.6). Therefore, a subcomponent of an aliased variable may disappear or change shape, and renaming such a subcomponent thus is illegal, while the same operation would have been legal in Ada 95. Note that most allocated objects are still constrained by their initial value (see 4.8), and thus have no change in the legality of renaming for them. For example, using the type T2 of the previous example: 
8.c/2
   AT2 : aliased T2;
   C1_Ren : Integer renames AT2.C1; -- Illegal in Ada 2005, legal in Ada 95
   AT2 := (D1 => True);             -- Raised Constraint_Error in Ada 95,
                                    -- but does not in Ada 2005, so C1_Ren becomes
                                    -- invalid when this is assigned.

Extensions to Ada 95

8.d/2
{AI95-00230-01} {AI95-00231-01} {AI95-00254-01} {AI95-00409-01} {extensions to Ada 95} A renaming can have an anonymous access type. In that case, the accessibility of the renaming is that of the original object (accessibility is not lost as it is for a component or stand-alone object).
8.e/2
{AI95-00231-01} {AI95-00423-01} A renaming can have a null_exclusion; if so, the renamed object must also exclude null, so that the null_exclusion does not lie. On the other hand, if the renaming does not have a null_exclusion. it excludes null of the renamed object does. 

Wording Changes from Ada 95

8.f/2
{8652/0017} {AI95-00184-01} Corrigendum: Fixed to forbid renamings of depends-on-discriminant components if the type might be definite.

Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 
Ada-Europe Sponsored by Ada-Europe