Some entities are always anonymous. For instance,
a type is never named (the name represents the first subtype). We don't
mention those here as this paragraph is about named entities.
There are several forms of declaration. A basic_declaration
is a form of declaration defined as follows.
is a language
construct that associates a name with (a view of) an entity.
declaration may appear explicitly in the program text (an explicit
declaration), or may be supposed to occur at a given place in the text
as a consequence of the semantics of another construct (an implicit
Discussion: An implicit declaration generally
declares a predefined or inherited operation associated with the definition
of a type. This term is used primarily when allowing explicit declarations
to override implicit declarations, as part of a type declaration.
Term entry: declaration
— language construct that associates a name with (a view of) an
Note: A declaration can appear explicitly in the program text (an explicit
declaration), or can be supposed to occur at a given place in the text
as a consequence of the semantics of another construct (an implicit declaration).
contain a definition
for a view
of an entity. A view consists
of an identification of the entity (the entity of
the view), plus
view-specific characteristics that affect the use of the entity through
that view (such as mode of access to an object, formal parameter names
and defaults for a subprogram, or visibility to components of a type).
In most cases, a declaration also contains the definition for the entity
itself (a renaming_declaration
is an example of a declaration that does not define a new entity, but
instead defines a view of an existing entity (see 8.5
Term entry: view
of an entity — representation of an entity that reveals some
or all of the properties of the entity
Note: A single entity can have multiple views.
Discussion: Most declarations define
a view (of some entity) whose view-specific characteristics are unchanging
for the life of the view. However, subtypes are somewhat unusual in that
they inherit characteristics from whatever view of their type is currently
visible. Hence, a subtype is not a view of a type; it is more
of an indirect reference. By contrast, a private type provides a single,
unchanging (partial) view of its full type.
When it is clear from context, the term object
is used in place
of view of an object
. Similarly, the terms type
are used in place of view of a type
and view of a subtype
Discussion: Rules interpreted at compile
time generally refer to views of entities, rather than the entities themselves.
This is necessary to preserve privacy; characteristics that are not visible
should not be used in compile-time rules. Thus, Static Semantics and
Legality Rules generally implicitly have “view of”. Legality
Rules that need to look into the private part are the exception to this
On the other hand, run-time rules can work either
way, so “view of” should not be assumed in Dynamic Semantics
For example, a reference to the components of an
object in a rule that is interpreted at compile time would not apply
to components that are not visible. On the other hand, a reference to
the components of an object in a dynamic semantics rule would apply to
all components of the object, visible or not, including (for tagged objects)
components which are not components of the nominal type of the object
(see 3.9.1). Other terms, such as “subcomponent”
and “part”, are interpreted analogously.
For each declaration, the language
rules define a certain region of text called the scope
declaration (see 8.2
). Most declarations associate
with a declared entity. Within its scope, and only there, there are places
where it is possible to use the identifier
to refer to the declaration, the view it defines, and the associated
entity; these places are defined by the visibility rules (see 8.3
At such places the identifier
is said to be a name
of the entity (the direct_name
the name is said to denote
the view, and the associated entity (see 8.6
The declaration is said to declare
the view, and in most cases, the entity itself.
The process by which a construct
achieves its run-time effect is called execution
process is also called elaboration
for declarations and evaluation
for expressions. One of the terms execution, elaboration, or evaluation
is defined by this Reference Manual for each construct that has a run-time
Term entry: execution
— process by which a construct achieves its run-time effect
Note: Execution of a declaration is also called elaboration. Execution
of an expression is also called evaluation.
To be honest:
The term elaboration is
also used for the execution of certain constructs that are not declarations,
and the term evaluation is used for the execution of certain constructs
that are not expressions. For example, subtype_indication
are elaborated, and range
For bodies, execution and elaboration are both
explicitly defined. When we refer specifically to the execution of a
body, we mean the explicit definition of execution for that kind of body,
not its elaboration.
Discussion: Technically, "the execution
of a declaration" and "the elaboration of a declaration"
are synonymous. We use the term "elaboration" of a construct
when we know the construct is elaborable. When we are talking about more
arbitrary constructs, we use the term "execution". For example,
we use the term "erroneous execution", to refer to any erroneous
execution, including erroneous elaboration or evaluation.
When we explicitly define evaluation or elaboration
for a construct, we are implicitly defining execution of that construct.
We also use the term "execution" for
things like statement
which are executable, but neither elaborable nor evaluable. We considered
using the term "execution" only for nonelaborable, nonevaluable
constructs, and defining the term "action" to mean what we
have defined "execution" to mean. We rejected this idea because
we thought three terms that mean the same thing was enough — four
would be overkill. Thus, the term "action" is used only informally
in the standard (except where it is defined as part of a larger term,
such as "protected action").
Term entry: elaboration
— process by which a declaration achieves its run-time effect
Note: Elaboration is one of the forms of execution.
Term entry: evaluation
— process by which an expression achieves its run-time effect
Note: Evaluation is one of the forms of execution.
To be honest:
if elaboration is defined for it.
construct is evaluable
if evaluation is defined for it.
construct is executable
if execution is defined for it.
Don't confuse “elaborable”
with “preelaborable” (defined in 10.2.1
Intuitively, an executable construct
is one that has a defined run-time effect (which may be null). Since
execution includes elaboration and evaluation as special cases, all elaborable
and all evaluable constructs are also executable. Hence, most constructs
in Ada are executable. An important exception is that the constructs
inside a generic unit are not executable directly, but rather are used
as a template for (generally) executable constructs in instances of the
time, the declaration of an entity declares
run time, the elaboration of the declaration creates
Ramification: Syntactic categories for
declarations are named either entity_declaration
(if they include a trailing semicolon) or entity_specification
The various kinds of named
entities that can be declared are as follows: an object (including components
and parameters), a named number, a type (the name always refers to its
first subtype), a subtype, a subprogram (including enumeration literals
and operators), a single entry, an entry family, a package, a protected
or task unit (which corresponds to either a type or a single object),
an exception, a generic unit, a label, and the name of a statement.
Identifiers are also associated with names of
pragmas, arguments to pragmas, and with attributes, but these are not
Wording Changes from Ada 83
It becomes a direct_name
in usage occurrences where the usage is required (in Clause 8
to be directly visible;
It becomes a selector_name
in usage occurrences where the usage is required (in Clause 8
to be visible but not necessarily directly visible;
For declarations that come in “two parts”
(program unit declaration plus body, private or incomplete type plus
full type, deferred constant plus full constant), we consider both to
be defining occurrences. Thus, for example, the syntax for package_body
after the reserved word body
, as opposed to direct_name
The defining occurrence of a statement name
is in its implicit declaration, not where it appears in the program text.
Considering the statement name itself to be the defining occurrence would
complicate the visibility rules.
The phrase “visible by selection”
is not used in Ada 95. It is subsumed by simply “visible”
and the Name Resolution Rules for selector_name
(Note that in Ada 95, a declaration is visible at all places where one
could have used a selector_name
not just at places where a selector_name
was actually used. Thus, the places where a declaration is directly visible
are a subset of the places where it is visible. See Clause 8
We use the term “declaration” to
s that declare (views
of) objects, such as parameter_specification
In Ada 83, these are referred to as a “form of declaration”,
but it is not entirely clear that they are considered simply “declarations”.
RM83 contains an incomplete definition of "elaborated" in this
subclause: it defines "elaborated" for declarations, declarative_part
but "elaboration" is defined elsewhere for various other constructs.
To make matters worse, Ada 95 has a different set of elaborable constructs.
Instead of correcting the list, it is more maintainable to refer to the
term "elaborable," which is defined in a distributed manner.
RM83 uses the term “has no other effect”
to describe an elaboration that doesn't do anything except change the
state from not-yet-elaborated to elaborated. This was a confusing wording,
because the answer to “other than what?” was to be found
many pages away. In Ada 95, we change this wording to “has no effect”
(for things that truly do nothing at run time), and “has no effect
other than to establish that so-and-so can happen without failing the
Elaboration_Check” (for things where it matters).
We make it clearer that the term "execution"
covers elaboration and evaluation as special cases. This was implied
in RM83. For example, "erroneous execution" can include any
execution, and RM83-9.4(3) has, "The task designated by any other
task object depends on the master whose execution creates the task object;"
the elaboration of the master's declarative_part
is doing the task creation.
Wording Changes from Ada 95
Wording Changes from Ada 2005
Ada 2005 and 2012 Editions sponsored in part by Ada-Europe