Re: Interfaces and private types

"Philippe Tarroux" <philippe.tarroux@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fnmruc$ive$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Randy Brukardt wrote:
Specifically, it violates 7.3(7.3/2): "the partial view shall be a
descendant of an interface type (see 3.9.4) if and only if the full type
is
a descendant of the interface type."

As written, this is illegal because type T does not have the interface
Int.
As it is written the compiler i use doesn't mention any error and i
interpreted this construct as legal because :

1/ the interface is synchronized thus allowing to derive concurrent or
non concurrent types

Sure.

2/ The partial view is a descendant of the interface type

Sure.

3/ The full view precises that the partial view correspond to a
concurrent type but hides this detail to the user

Sure.

Writing, as you propose

task type T is new Int with private;

That's not what I proposed. You have to repeat the interface name on the
full type declaration, and you did not write that in your original question.

package Test_Interfaces is

type Int is synchronized interface;
procedure Init (I : in out Int) is abstract;

type T is new Int with private;

private
--task type T is -- This is what you originally had, and it is illegal.
type type T is new Int with -- This is legal, and presumably is what you
meant.
entry Init;
end T;
end Test_Interfaces;

I again refer you to 7.3(7.3/2) in the RM.

....
You could work around the bug with something like:
....
But the overriding procedure Init needs to be redefined both as an entry
of T and as a procedure. I assume that when i will be trying to call
O.Init with O a type T task there will be a mistake due to the double
definition.

You shouldn't assume that (although you'd be right as the language stands).
The intent was the prefixed notation only be used when no other
interpretation is possible (that is, it works like a use clause). Thus the
direct call to the entry would be prefered. Unfortunately, the rules for
that aren't actually in the RM.

Thus you might be right, in that you would have a risk of running into
another compiler bug. Of course, there is no requirement that the procedure
and the entry have the same name in this case, so the issue is easily
avoided.

But, anyway, thanks a lot for the comments. I am waiting for comments
from the guys who are in charge of the gnat compiler.

If you want that, you probably have to report a bug to them. This is an Ada
discussion group, not a bug reporting forum!

Randy.


.

Relevant Pages

  • RFC: if_clone overhaul
    ... Please test/review the following patch to the network interface cloneing ... static void ... -if_clone_lookup(const char *name, int *unitp) ... static int gifmodevent; ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • [PATCH 3/7] adding xc5000 tuner chip driver
    ... this code also uses the tunerchip.h interface which allows to attach ... It uses the latest Xceive reference driver which fixes some issues. ... new file mode 100644 ... unsigned int frequency; ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • [PATCH] usbmon: add binary interface
    ... USB records are stored in a liked list, alike current text interface implementation, so most code is shared from binary and text interface. ... unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) ... struct urb *urb, char ev_type) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled ACPI_PROCFS removal
    ... The ACPI sysfs conversion work is still in progress. ... -What: ACPI procfs interface ... -static int ... if (entry) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Possible to pass strings back to ASP from ActriveX?
    ... afx_msg int AboutBox; ... helpstring("AxTemplateTest1 ActiveX Control module"), ... // Primary dispatch interface for CAxTemplateTest1Ctrl ... helpstring("Dispatch interface for AxTemplateTest1 Control")] ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.embedded)