type STRING is array (POSITIVE range <>) of CHARACTER;
This declaration specifies that values of type STRING are one- dimensional arrays whose components have the type CHARACTER. It further specifies that the index values must be positive integers, the subtype POSITIVE being declared as
subtype POSITIVE is INTEGER range 1 .. INTEGER'LAST;
On the other hand, it does not specify which values should be assumed by the index bounds. This is stressed by the box (<>) in the index subtype definition
POSITIVE range <>
The box symbol (here as elsewhere in the language) stands for something that is to be filled in later; something that is left unspecified, but only temporarily.
Later on, it will be possible to partition the set of array values into subsets corresponding to some specific index bounds. Each such subset defines a subtype of the array type. The form of constraint used to specify the range of index values (and hence the bounds) for a given index position is called an index constraint. For example:
BUFFER : STRING(1 .. 1000);
This declares the variable BUFFER of type STRING: an index constraint is required in such a declaration and, in the case considered, it specifies that the lower and upper bounds are the positive numbers 1 and 1000.
We can also declare a subtype, and thus give a name to the subtype indication formed by the name of the array type followed by an index constraint. Subsequently, we can use the subtype name in object declarations:
subtype LINE is STRING(1 .. 80); LEAD : constant LINE := (LINE'RANGE => ' '); HEADER : LINE := LEAD;
We have used the array attribute LINE'RANGE in the initialization of LEAD: it provides the index range of the subtype LINE in a symbolic manner, and is therefore easier to maintain than stating the range literally, as 1 .. 80.
Other examples of array attributes are given below:
BUFFER'FIRST -- 1 BUFFER'LAST -- 1000 BUFFER'LENGTH -- 1000 LINE'LAST -- 80 LEAD'LAST -- 80 (same as LINE'LAST)
In some cases we want all declared objects of a given array type to have the same index bounds. This can be achieved by providing an index constraint directly in the array type declaration. For example
type SCHEDULE is array (DAY) of BOOLEAN;
This form is actually a contraction of the declaration of an anonymous array type followed by the declaration of a subtype:
type schedule is array (DAY range <>) of BOOLEAN; -- arbitrary range of days subtype SCHEDULE is schedule (DAY'FIRST .. DAY'LAST); -- always 7 days
This means that SCHEDULE is actually a (constrained) array subtype and all objects that have this subtype therefore have the same bounds (MON and SUN).
There are two cases in which the subtype of an array object (and hence the bounds) can be inferred, and therefore is not required to be explicit in the declaration of the object. The first case is for constants. In a way, constancy is the ultimate form of restriction: whereas an index constraint freezes the index bounds but not the values of the array components, everything is invariable in the case of a constant: the component values and hence also the bounds. Thus a constant declaration such as
MESSAGE : constant STRING := "how many characters?";
is allowed. The implied lower bound is 1 - that is, POSITIVE'FIRST - and the implied upper bound is given by the number of characters of the string (which we can subsequently obtain from the attribute MESSAGE'LENGTH).
The second case is for formal parameters. We want to provide a subprogram of general utility that is applicable to any array of a given type, whatever the index bounds. This is achieved by declaring the formal parameter to have this array type. Then, for each call of the subprogram, the formal parameter will be constrained by the bounds obtained from the associated actual parameter. For example a function MIRROR, returning the mirror image of a string of arbitrary bounds, is defined as follows:
function MIRROR(A : STRING) return STRING is RESULT : STRING(A'RANGE); begin for N in A'RANGE loop RESULT(N) := A(A'LAST - (N - A'FIRST)); end loop; return RESULT; end MIRROR;
For each call, the formal parameter A is constrained by the bounds of the associated actual parameter. This means that the bounds A'FIRST and A'LAST (and hence the range A'RANGE) have well-defined values during a given call. Consider for example:
EGASSEM : constant STRING := MIRROR(MESSAGE); -- the string "?sretcarahc ynam woh"
then during the call MIRROR(MESSAGE), the value of A'FIRST is MESSAGE'FIRST; that of A'LAST is MESSAGE'LAST; and the range A'RANGE is defined by MESSAGE'RANGE. These values are invariable for the call considered, but they need not be the same for different calls.
To complete our discussion of array types we need to mention the set of operations defined by an array type. Some of, them such as indexing, are fairly classical: indexing the array BUFFER by the index value N is achieved by BUFFER(N) and refers to the Nth component of that array (since the lower bound is 1). The discussion given in the following subsections will concentrate upon features that are less classical: slices and aggregates.
In this section...
4.5.1 Slices and Sliding
4.5.2 Array Aggregates
4.5.3 Equivalence and Explicit Conversions
Slices are quite useful for programs that deal with strings and more generally for one-dimensional arrays. Consider, for example, setting the headline of a given page of a dictionary. Assuming the headline declared as
HEADLINE : STRING(1 .. 60) := (others => ' ');
it could later be filled by slice assignments such as
HEADLINE(1 .. 10) := "battle cry"; HEADLINE(29 .. 32) := " 125"; HEADLINE(46 .. 60) := "Bayeux tapestry";
More realistically, our application would have functions defining the left, middle, and right sides for a given page number:
function LEFT (N : POSITIVE) return STRING (1 .. 20); function MID (N : POSITIVE) return STRING (1 .. 4); function RIGHT (N : POSITIVE) return STRING (1 .. 20);
so that the composition for the page 125 could appear as follows:
HEADLINE(1 .. 20) := LEFT(125); HEADLINE(29 .. 32) := MID(125); HEADLINE(41 .. 60) := RIGHT(125);
Another way of programming this headline composition is to declare an eight character blank filler and then use string catenation. So for the current page P:
FILLER : constant STRING(1 .. 8) := (others => ' '); ... HEADLINE := LEFT(P) & FILLER & MID(P) & FILLER & RIGHT(P);
In another part of the program, in which we analyze the header, we may define another string
PLACE : STRING(1 .. 60);
and write the slice assignment
PLACE(1 .. 20) := HEADLINE(41 .. 60);
Finally, we may want to compare a slice to a string literal or to another slice:
if PLACE(1 .. 20) = " BAYEUX TAPESTRY" or PLACE(1 .. 20) = HEADLINE (41 .. 60) then
Having reviewed these typical uses of slices, we now consider what they are and what is involved in slice assignments and comparisons. Consider first the type of a slice such as
PLACE(41 .. 60)
This type is the same as that of PLACE, that is, the type STRING. Remember that an array type defines the subtype of the index bounds but not the bounds themselves. Thus STRING was defined as
type STRING is array (POSITIVE range <>) of CHARACTER;
Consequently PLACE and PLACE(41 .. 60) are both of this type, although they have different subtypes. The subtype of PLACE is
STRING(1 .. 60)
whereas the subtype of
PLACE(41 .. 60)
STRING(41 .. 60)
Note that we can have slices even in the case where the array type is anonymous. For example, given the type SCHEDULE declared in the previous section we can declare
A, B : SCHEDULE;
and then perform slice assignments such as
A(MON .. FRI) := (MON .. FRI => TRUE); A(SAT .. SUN) := (SAT .. SUN => FALSE);
Similarly we can catenate slices as in
B := A(WED .. SUN) & A(MON .. TUE); -- B = (TRUE, TRUE, TRUE, FALSE, FALSE, TRUE, TRUE)
In the above cases, slices such as A(MON .. FRI) and A(SAT .. SUN) have the anonymous type schedule (and this is quite legitimate, as is amply demonstrated by these examples).
Consider next what is involved in an assignment statement such as
PLACE(1 .. 20) := HEADLINE(41 .. 60);
The two objects do have the same type (STRING) but their subtypes are STRING(1 .. 20) and STRING(41 .. 60) respectively, and are thus different. The assignment is nevertheless correct: the language rules specify that before assigning HEADLINE(41 .. 60), this array value undergoes a subtype conversion to the subtype of the left-hand side, that is, to STRING(1 .. 20). This subtype conversion - sometimes called sliding - is possible only if the two arrays have the same length (which is true for our example). If the lengths differ, the subtype conversion fails and the exception CONSTRAINT_ERROR is raised.
Sliding is also involved in comparisons such as
PLACE(1 .. 20) = HEADLINE(41 .. 60)
so that equality does not require the same subtype (and bounds): it only requires that the lengths be the same and that matching components be equal - matching components are those that have the same relative position. If the lengths differ, the two slices are unequal (no exception is raised).
So far we have given examples of sliding in the case of slices, but subtype conversions are also involved for array objects that do not have the same bounds. For example, having declared
BANNER : STRING(101 .. 160);
the following assignment is correct and involves a similar subtype conversion:
BANNER := PLACE;
To conclude, sliding corresponds to a view of arrays for which the bounds are not part of array values but rather of array objects. The logical consistency of the model moreover requires that array bounds be transmitted to formal parameters. The sliding semantics selected for equality can actually be described in Ada itself:
function "=" (LEFT, RIGHT : STRING) return BOOLEAN is begin if LEFT'LENGTH /= RIGHT'LENGTH then return FALSE; end if; for N in LEFT'RANGE loop if LEFT(N) /= RIGHT(N + (RIGHT'FIRST - LEFT'FIRST)) then return FALSE; end if; end loop; return TRUE; end;
Sliding actually corresponds to the term (RIGHT'FIRST - LEFT'FIRST) in the indexing of the right array.
Without slices the necessity for a sliding semantics of assignments would not be as obvious: after all it would be possible to restrict assignments to cases where the bounds were the same. Another alternative would have been to consider that sliding is part of the slicing itself. This would mean, for example, that the lower bound of any string slice is POSITIVE'FIRST. However this semantics does not appear very intuitive. Consider for example the following function:
function LOCATE(C : CHARACTER; S : STRING) return INTEGER is begin for N in S'RANGE loop if C = S(N) then return N; end if; end loop; return 0; -- not found end;
With the Ada semantics of slices we can call this function in the following manner:
LOCATE('X', BUFFER) LOCATE('*', BUFFER(30 .. 90)) LOCATE('?', BUFFER(100 .. 200))
and so on, and we expect the result, if not zero, to be usable as an index indicating a position where the character was located in the buffer. Now this relies essentially on the fact that both the lower and upper bounds of the actual array are passed to the formal array. This would not be the case if slicing already implied sliding, since all STRING slices would have a lower bound equal to 1.
The syntax of array aggregates allows for named aggregates, aggregates with the choice others, and positional aggregates. These forms are justified by readability and by convenience, and also, in the case of positional aggregates, by tradition. Their design had to take into account certain limitations, inspired either by efficiency or by consistency with other rules, such as sliding.
The different forms of aggregate are reviewed in what follows. For each form we discuss what is allowed, and consider the determination of the subtype of the corresponding aggregates - that is, how to determine the lower and upper bounds. Most examples will presuppose the following declarations:
subtype INDEX is INTEGER range -1 .. +200; type TABLE is array (INDEX range <>) of INTEGER; subtype QUINTET is TABLE(0 .. 4); subtype TRIPLE is TABLE(1 .. 3); TRIO : TRIPLE; QUINT : QUINTET; ROW : TABLE(1 .. 50); procedure DISPLAY (T : TABLE); procedure TRIANGLE (T : TRIPLE);
(1 .. 10 => 0, 11 .. 50 => 25);
The choices being explicit, the lower and upper bounds are fully defined by the smallest and largest choice values, respectively, so that the subtype of the above aggregate is TABLE(1 .. 50), in the present context. Thus for the call
DISPLAY((1 .. 10 => 0, 11 .. 50 => 25));
the attributes of the formal parameter T have the corresponding values: T'FIRST = 1 and T'LAST = 50.
For assignment statements, sliding applies as usual, and the following assignment is therefore well-defined:
QUINT := (1 .. 5 => 33);
The limitations imposed on named aggregates are justified by efficiency considerations: the choices must be static (computable at compilation time), unless the aggregate includes a single component association, and this component association has a single choice. Thus an aggregate with a single choice such as
(1 .. N => 25)
where N is computed at run time, is allowed. But an aggregate such as
(M .. N => 25, K .. L => 12)
where M, N, K and L are not static is not allowed, since this would require a rather complex check at run time that the ranges were adjacent and did not overlap.
( ... , others => COMMON_VALUE)
The particular case where all components have the same common value is also frequent; in this case the form of the aggregate reduces to
(others => COMMON_VALUE)
In contrast to the situation encountered with previous named aggregates, the presence of an others choice implies that no information about the bounds can be derived from the aggregate itself and this information will therefore have to be obtained from the context. An aggregate with the choice others will be illegal in a context that does not define the bounds. For this reason, a call such as:
DISPLAY((others => 25)); -- illegal
is illegal since no information on the bounds can be obtained from the context; indeed it is the other way round: since the formal parameter is unconstrained, it expects the bounds to be supplied by the actual parameter. For similar reasons the comparison
if TRIO = (others => 10) then ...
is not allowed, since the predefined operator "=", which is implicitly declared by the declaration of the type TABLE, has the following profile:
function "=" (LEFT, RIGHT : TABLE) return BOOLEAN;
so that the right parameter is of the (unconstrained) array type TABLE, which does not provide information on the bounds.
For the above reasons an aggregate containing the choice others is only allowed in contexts where we know the array subtype, whether by declaration or by qualification, as in the following examples:
TRIANGLE((others => 15)); -- subtype TRIPLE DISPLAY(TRIPLE'(others => 21)); -- qualified: a TRIPLE DISPLAY(QUINTET'(0 .. 1 => 5, others => 15)); -- qualified: a QUINTET
For assignment statements, the choice others is also allowed, since the subtype of the variable on the left-hand side is always known. So we can write:
TRIO := (others => 0); QUINT := (others => 1);
Note that an others choice need not be static, as is shown in the following example:
for N in 1 .. 4 loop ROW(10*N .. 12*N) := (others => 3); end loop;
Whereas the above aggregate is allowed, an aggregate combining the choice others with other named associations is not allowed as the right-hand-side expression of an assignment statement (unless the aggregate is qualified). To understand this restriction, remember that an array assignment involves sliding of the bounds of the value of the array expression. In combination with the choice others this could have led to surprises. Consider for example the variable:
FIVE : TABLE(2 .. 6);
and the (illegal) assignment statement
FIVE := (3 => 8, others => 1); -- illegal
One might expect the resulting value of FIVE to be (8,1,1,1,1), because of the explicit choice, or perhaps (1,8,1,1,1), because of the lower bound of FIVE. However, before sliding the subtype of the aggregate would be TABLE(-1 .. 3), with INDEX'FIRST = -1 as lower bound, therefore placing the value 8 in fifth position and with the resulting value (1,1,1,1,8). The combination of these two degrees of freedom - sliding on the one hand, and others with other associations on the other hand - would thus have unintuitive and therefore unreliable consequences; it is not allowed in Ada.
Note that, as usual, an explicit qualification resolves all doubt, so that the following assignment is allowed:
FIVE := QUINTET'(3 => 8, others => 1); -- (1,1,1,8,1)
TRIANGLE((4, 6, 8)); -- subtype TRIPLE TRIO := (4, 6, 8); -- subtype TRIPLE DISPLAY(TRIPLE'(4, 6, 8)); -- qualified: TRIPLE
the subtype is known and therefore defines the bounds. Consider on the other hand a call such as
DISPLAY((4, 6, 8));
where the declaration of the formal parameter is unconstrained: in such a case the lower bound of the aggregate is (implicitly) taken to be INDEX'FIRST, the lower bound of the index subtype (here -1).
Name equivalence, as explained in section 4.3, is used systematically for all types in Ada, and in particular for array types. As for other types, the main arguments in favor of name equivalence are simplicity and the desire to avoid unintentional equivalence: It would not be desirable to treat two arrays as having the same type just because the component type is the same:
type OPTION_SET is array (OPTION) of BOOLEAN; type COLOR_SET is array (COLOR) of BOOLEAN;
and (in this case) just because the number of options happens to equal the number of colors. From a conceptual point of view, these two array types have nothing to do with each other, apart from their common component type.
On the other hand, the design of Ada recognizes that this safety argument does not apply to explicit type conversions: being explicit, they are unequivocally intentional and cannot be just accidental.
Explicit type conversions are clearly desirable among array types that satisfy certain conditions. To illustrate their need, consider first a package defining sorting operations. It could appear as:
with MATHS; use MATHS; -- defines REAL package SORTING is type VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of REAL; procedure SORT(X : in out VECTOR); ... end SORTING;
For the definition of the type VECTOR the number of decisions to be made was rather limited: first there was the component type, for which it appeared convenient to use the type REAL defined in the library package MATHS (along with useful mathematical functions); then there was the selection of INTEGER as index subtype. Given this limited number of decisions, it is not unlikely that the same decisions could be made in another package defined totally independently, say by a different software producer. For example a package performing table listings could be specified as:
with MATHS; use MATHS; package LISTING is type TABLE is array (INTEGER range <>) of REAL; procedure LIST(X : in TABLE); ... end LISTING;
These two packages are of general use and hence they would probably be made available as library packages, so that a user performing both sort and listing operations would naturally write a procedure such as the one given below:
with MATHS, SORTING, LISTING; use MATHS, SORTING, LISTING; procedure APPLICATION is ... V : VECTOR(1 .. 200); ... T : TABLE(0 .. 3000); begin ... SORT(V); ... LIST(T); ... end APPLICATION;
The SORT operation is applicable to vectors and thus to V; similarly the LIST operation is applicable to tables and thus to T. However, a dilemma would arise for an array that must be sorted before being listed: should it be declared as a VECTOR or as a TABLE? - neither of the two would work. Similarly, an array might have been declared as
A : array (1 .. 1000) of REAL;
without knowing in advance whether it would ever be sorted (or listed), and it would be cumbersome to have to change the declaration of A just because it needed to be sorted in one part of the program.
For these reasons, explicit conversions are allowed between two array types if both types have the same component type and the same dimensionality, and if for each dimension the index types are the same (or convertible to each other: see RM 4.6). Syntactically, an explicit conversion appears as a call of a function whose name is that of the target type. For example:
SORT(VECTOR(T)); ... LIST(TABLE(V)); ... SORT(VECTOR(A));
Note that conversions are still possible when the constraints on the component type are different. Consider for example the array types
type CHAR_LINE is array (1 .. 120) of CHARACTER; type TEXT_LINE is array (1 .. 120) of CHARACTER range 'A' .. 'Z'; CL : CHAR_LINE; TL : TEXT_LINE;
Explicit conversions such as
TL := TEXT_LINE(CL); CL := CHAR_LINE(TL);
are allowed. The fact that they are explicit warns the user that they may (but need not) be costly. For example, the conversion of CL to the type TEXT_LINE requires an implicit loop to check that each component of CL is in the allowed range of characters; on the other hand, no check is involved for the conversion of TL to the type CHAR_LINE. Similarly, for an in out parameter that is implemented by reference, an actual parameter that has the form of a type conversion may require the creation of a copy on the calling side if the compiler has chosen different representations for the two types.
Array types are the only types for which Ada provides anonymous type definitions. However, all array objects declared in this manner are of different types, even in the case of multiple declarations such as
U, V : array (1 .. 12) of INTEGER;
since this multiple declaration has the same meaning as the following succession of single declarations:
U : array (1 .. 12) of INTEGER; V : array (1 .. 12) of INTEGER;
Two type definitions imply two distinct types, and thus we cannot assign U to V, although we could assign a component of U to a component of V since they are both of type INTEGER. Should we want U and V to be of the same type (and the ability to assign U to V), the only solution is to name the type and use this type name in the declaration of U and V:
type DOZEN is array (1 .. 12) of INTEGER; U : DOZEN; V : DOZEN; ... U := V;