Renaming Declarations

Annotated Ada Reference Manual (Ada 2022 Draft 35) — Legal Information

8.5 Renaming Declarations

[A renaming_declaration declares another name for an entity, such as an object, exception, package, subprogram, entry, or generic unit. Alternatively, a subprogram_renaming_declaration can be the completion of a previous subprogram_declaration.]

Term entry: renaming — declaration that does not define a new entity, but instead defines a new view of an existing entity

Syntax

Dynamic Semantics

The elaboration of a renaming_declaration evaluates the name that follows the reserved word renames and thereby determines the view and entity denoted by this name (the renamed view and renamed entity). [A name that denotes the renaming_declaration denotes (a new view of) the renamed entity.]

NOTE 1 {AI12-0442-1} Renaming can may be used to resolve name conflicts and to act as a shorthand. Renaming with a different identifier or operator_symbol does not hide the old name; the new name and the old name can need not be visible at different the same places.

This paragraph was deleted.NOTE 2 {AI12-0427-1} A task or protected object that is declared by an explicit object_declaration can be renamed as an object. However, a single task or protected object cannot be renamed since the corresponding type is anonymous (meaning it has no nameable subtypes). For similar reasons, an object of an anonymous array or access type cannot be renamed.

NOTE 3 A subtype defined without any additional constraint can be used to achieve the effect of renaming another subtype (including a task or protected subtype) as in

Wording Changes from Ada 83

The second sentence of RM83-8.5(3), “At any point where a renaming declaration is visible, the identifier, or operator symbol of this declaration denotes the renamed entity.” is incorrect. It doesn't say directly visible. Also, such an identifier might resolve to something else.

The verbiage about renamings being legal “only if exactly one...”, which appears in RM83-8.5(4) (for objects) and RM83-8.5(7) (for subprograms) is removed, because it follows from the normal rules about overload resolution. For language lawyers, these facts are obvious; for programmers, they are irrelevant, since failing these tests is highly unlikely.