Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a function
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Tiny mistaken on an AdaPower page
Next: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned"by a function
From: Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) on 11 Feb 2010 23:28 Tipo error : Read procedure G is -- Variation from F : the protected -- type is wrapped in a limited record -- which handles the derivation of -- the Limited_Type. Instead of procedure G is -- Variation from G : the protected -- type is wrapped in a limited record -- which is handle the derivation of -- the Limited_Type.
From: Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) on 11 Feb 2010 23:40 On 11 fév, 16:16, Robert A Duff <bobd...(a)shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote: > I'm not going to read your code carefully, but that doesn't > seem right. If you have: > > X : T := F(...); > > the result of F is "built in place" in X, and should be finalized > when the procedure containing X is left. the result of F is "built in place" in X : Yes, that's what I was expecting too ! And should be finalized when the procedure containing X is left : the same ! So you confirmed my expectations. Try the Test program, and you will see this things are not going this way with it. Things works nice with G.
From: Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) on 11 Feb 2010 23:47 On 11 fév, 18:40, Adam Beneschan <a...(a)irvine.com> wrote: > Yes, I believe that's right, and it's spelled out clearly in the RM, > in sections 7.6(17.1/3-17.11/3 and especially 17.7/3), 6.5(5.8/3), > 6.5(23/2), 7.6(4), and 3.10.2(10.1/2). With the exception of 6.5(23/2), none of these references exists in my annotated RM. Was this a joke ?
From: Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) on 11 Feb 2010 23:49 On 11 fév, 18:40, Adam Beneschan <a...(a)irvine.com> wrote: > But more simply, as I understand it: (1) When you have an extended > return, the return object is used as the anonymous object that holds > the function result at the point of the function call, so it's not > finalized until the caller is done with the anonymous object; and (2) > when the object is built in place, the anonymous object "mutates into" > the new object and is not finalized (7.6(17.7/3)). So yes, no > finalization should be done until X goes out of scope. > > -- Adam So yes, no finalization should be done until X goes out of scope : second confirmation.
From: Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) on 12 Feb 2010 00:25
On 11 fév, 22:51, Adam Beneschan <a...(a)irvine.com> wrote: > point of the nasty language in 3.10.2(10.1). Which is another way of [ARM 3.10.2(10.1/2)] > Within a return statement, the accessibility level of the return > object is that of the execution of the return statement. If the > return statement completes normally by returning from the function, > then prior to leaving the function, the accessibility level of the > return object changes to be a level determined by the point of call, > as does the level of any coextensions (see below) of the return > object. I don't feel it's so nasty (seems logic and coherent to me). But it's about Operations of Access Types (3.10.2), not limited type (while there are some similarities in some way). |