Unformatted version of **ai05s/ai05-0153-2.txt version 1.1**

Other versions for file**ai05s/ai05-0153-2.txt**

Other versions for file

!standard 3.2.2(7) 09-10-16 AI05-0153-1/01

!class Amendment 09-10-16

!status work item 09-10-16

!status received 09-10-16

!priority Medium

!difficulty Medium

!subject Discontiguous scalar constraints and partial discriminant constraints

!class Amendment 09-10-16

!status work item 09-10-16

!status received 09-10-16

!priority Medium

!difficulty Medium

!subject Discontiguous scalar constraints and partial discriminant constraints

!summary

Add list scalar constraints and partial discriminant constraints
to the language.

!problem

Ada's constraints are a powerful way to enhance the contract of an
object (including formal parameters). But the constraints that can
be expressed are limited.

For instance, it isn't possible to specify that a record type may
have any of several discriminant values - for discriminants we can
only specify a single value or allow all discriminants.

!proposal

!wording

List scalar constraints:

Replace 3.2.2(6) with:

scalar_constraint ::=
range_constraint | list_constraint | digits_constraint | delta_constraint

Add after 3.5(4):

list_constraint ::= **when** discrete_choice_list

[Author's note: I used "when" and "discrete_choice_list" here to be consistent with
other parts of the language. We could use other syntaxes, but that would just make
it harder to remember the correct syntax IMHO.]

A value *belongs* to the discrete_choice_list of a list_constraint if it is of the type of
the choices of the list, and it is either equal to one of the expressions of the list or
it belongs to one of the discrete_ranges of the list. A value *satisfies* a list_constraint
if it belongs to the discrete_choice_list of the constraint. The *lower bound* of a list_constraint
is the smallest value used in an expression or the lower bound of a discrete range in the
discrete_choice_list of the constraint. The *upper bound* of a list_constraint
is the largest value used in an expression or the lower bound of a discrete range in the
discrete_choice_list of the constraint. A list_constraint is *discontiguous* if there exists
a value that belongs to the range defined by the lower and upper bound of the constraint.
A scalar subtype is *discontiguous* if it has a discontiguous list_constraint.

AARM Note: We require staticness for the discrete_choices, so the lower and upper bounds can
be determined at compile-time (we don't want to have to do a complex calculation to determine
S'First). This also allows us to make legality depend on whether the list_constraint is
contiguous.

Add after 3.5(5):

For a subtype_indication containing a list_constraint, the type of the expressions
(if any) in the discrete_choice_list are expected to be of the type determined by the subtype_mark
of the subtype_indication. The type of any discrete_range in the discrete_choice_list shall resolve
to that of the subtype_mark of the subtype_indication.

Legality Rules

An others choice may not appear in a discrete_choice_list used in a choice_list_constraint.

[Author's note: We probably could figure out a useful meaning for "others" in this
case, but it is unlikely to be intuitive.]

The type of a subtype_indication containing a list_constraint shall be discrete.

[Author's note: This concept could be extended to all scalar types, but that is dubious
as equality operations on real types are often not recommended; it seems bad to build
bad practice into the language. Restricting real choice_lists to only ranges would fix
this, but seems inconsistent with the rest of the language. Also, allowing real choice_lists
would require separating the syntax.]

The expressions and discrete_ranges of the discrete_choice_list of a list_constraint
shall be static.

[Author's note: See the AARM note above. Perhaps we could make a useful definition without
requiring this, but it would be a lot harder to describe and implement.]

Modify 3.5(7):

A constrained scalar subtype is one to which a range constraint {or list constraint}
applies. The *range* of a constrained scalar subtype {with a range constraint} is the range
associated with the range constraint of the subtype. The *range* of a constrained scalar
subtype {with a list constraint} is the range determined by the lower bound and upper bound
of the constraint. The *range* of an unconstrained scalar subtype is the base range of its type.

[Author's note: Most places where the range of a list constraint would be used have special
rules so that we don't actually use it. We define it so that S'First and S'Last are well-defined.]

Replace 3.5(8) with:

A range is compatible with a scalar subtype S if and only if:

* it is a null range; or

* S has a list constraint and each value of the range belongs to the
discrete_choice_list; or

* S is unconstrained or has a range constraint and each bound of the range belongs to
the range of the subtype.

A range_constraint is compatible with a scalar subtype if and only if its range is
compatible with the subtype.

A list_constraint is compatible with a scalar subtype if and only if

* the value of each expression of the discrete_choice_list satisfies the list constraint
of the subtype, or if the subtype does not have a list constraint, belongs to the
range of the subtype; and

* each range of the discrete_choice_list is compatible with the subtype.

AARM Discussion:

These rules are intended so that a user (and compiler) only need worry about the most
recent subtype declaration. The elaboration of a scalar subtype will fail if its
constraint includes values outside of those that satisfy its parent subtype.

This means that legality rules and the definition of dynamic semantics for the use of
list_constraints do not have to worry about ancestors of the type

End AARM Discussion.

Add after 3.5(9):

The elaboration of a list_constraint consists of the elababoration of the discrete_choice_list.
Expressions and discrete_ranges of the discrete_choice_list are evaluated in an arbitrary
order, and are converted to the type of the subtype_mark of the subtype_indication which
contains the list_constraint.

[Author's note: Should S'Range be illegal/raise Program_Error if the subtype has a discontiguous
list constraint? It's a dubious construct, but since you can always write it explicitly, it's
hard to say that it should be illegal.]

Add as the last sentence of 3.6(9):

An index subtype shall not statically denote a discontiguous subtype.

Add as the last sentence of 3.6(21):

The elaboration of an array_type_definition raises Program_Error if the index subtype is a
discontiguous subtype.

AARM Reason: We don't want to create "holey" array types. By raising Program_Error, we prevent
generic contract problems. But we also have a legality rule so when it is statically known
(outside of a generic) we detect the problem at compile-time.]

Add after 3.6.1(5):

The discrete_range of an index_constraint shall not statically denote a discontiguous subtype.

Add as the last sentence of 3.6.1(8):

The elaboration of an index_constraint raises Program_Error if any discrete_range is a
discontiguous subtype.

AARM Reason: We don't want to create "holey" array subtypes. By raising Program_Error, we prevent
generic contract problems. But we also have a legality rule so when it is statically known
(outside of a generic) we detect the problem at compile-time.]

Add after 4.1.2(4):

Legality Rules

The discrete_range of a slice shall not statically denote a discontiguous subtype.

Add as the last sentence of 4.1.2(7):

The evaluation of a slice raises Program_Error if any discrete_range is a
discontiguous subtype.

AARM Reason: We don't want to create "holey" slices, especially as slices can be required to
be passed by reference (for by-reference component types). By raising Program_Error, we prevent
generic contract problems. But we also have a legality rule so when it is statically known
(outside of a generic) we detect the problem at compile-time.]

[Note: 4.5.2(30/2) uses "satisfies", so no changes need to be made to allow this to work in
membership operations. Similarly, 4.6(51/2) uses "satisfies", so no wording changes are needed
for subtype conversions.]

Modify 4.9(29):

* A scalar constraint is static {if it has a list_constraint, }if it has no range_constraint,

or one with a static range;

[Author's note: strictly speaking, we don't need to modify this sentence, as a scalar constraint
with a list_constraint "has no range_constraint". But that's very tricky!]

Replace 4.9.1(1.1/2):

* both are static and:

- if scalar, each value that belongs to one also belongs to the other;
- else have equal corresponding bounds or discriminant values;

AARM Ramification:

This means that list constraints and range constraints can be statically matching
of they define the same set of values. For instance range 1 .. 4 matches
when 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 as well as when 4 | 1 .. 2 | 3.

Add an AARM note after 5.4(7):

AARM Ramification: This implies that for a static discontiguous subtype, only the
values belonging to that subtype should be covered. If instance, if we have:

It would be illegal to give any of the values 2, 4, and 6 here, even though they
are in Small_Odds'range.

Add an AARM note after 5.5(9):

AARM Ramification: This description implies that for loops will properly iterate over
just the values defined by a discontiguous subtype. For instance, if we have

Val will take the values 1, 3, 5, and 7. It will *not* take the values 2, 4, and 6, even
those are included in Small_Odds'range.

Note that the wording requires that the values are produced in order, even if they
are not given in order in the constraint. That's important, as:

represents the same constraint (and it will statically match Small_Odds).
End AARM Ramification.

-------------------------

Partial discriminant constraints:

!discussion

If adopted, this proposal would replace AI05-0158-1, as the subtype_indications proposed
here could be used in membership operations. Having two nearly identical syntaxes in an
operation would be horrible, given that they would have different rules.

---

We make the use of discontiguous subtypes as array indicies illegal/raise Program_Error.
It was briefly thought that we could use techniques similar to those used for holey enumeration
types to implement them, but that is not true. Sliding would also be problematic, as well as
holey by-reference slices (as mentioned in the AARM note above).

We raise Program_Error to avoid generic contract problems. An alternative approach would
be to add an indication that discontiguous subtypes are OK to discrete and integer formal
subtypes. Something like:

would work.

Then, discontiguous subtypes would not be allowed to match the existing generic discrete and
integer formals, while array operations would be illegal for the new formal types.

This seems like killing an ant with a bazooka to the author (a lot of complication for something
simple) and it also would reduce the usefulness of many existing generics. For instance,
Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO could not be instantiated with a discontiguous subtype. Obviously,
this could be fixed for language-defined generics, but the majority of user-defined generics
would not allow discontiguous subtypes (whether it matters or not).

The author believes the Program_Error solution to be less disruptive; moreover, most compilers
could give a warning should the bad situation actually occur in an instance.

---

--!corrigendum H.4(19)

!ACATS test

Add ACATS B and C tests for this feature.

!appendix

[Editor's note: Much of the mail that inspired these ideas can be found in AI05-0153-1 - June 19-23, 2009.] ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent