-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
[RFC] OOP - Destructors #117
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ | ||
- Feature Name: Standard OOP model | ||
- Start Date: May 5th 2020 | ||
- RFC PR: | ||
- RFC Issue: | ||
|
||
Summary | ||
======= | ||
|
||
Motivation | ||
========== | ||
|
||
Guide-level explanation | ||
======================= | ||
|
||
Record, tagged records and class records can declare destructors. The | ||
destructor is identifed by the `Destructor` attribute, e.g.: | ||
|
||
.. code-block:: ada | ||
|
||
package P is | ||
type T is tagged null record; | ||
for T'Destructor use My_Destructor; | ||
|
||
procedure My_Destructor (Self : in out T); | ||
|
||
type T2 is new T with null record | ||
with Destructor => My_Destructor; | ||
|
||
procedure My_Destructor (Self : in out T2); | ||
end P; | ||
|
||
The destruction sequence works in the following way: | ||
- If a type has an explicit destructor, it is first called. | ||
- If a type has components hierarchy, wether or not it has an explicit | ||
destructor, the destructor sequence is called on each components. | ||
- If a type is in a tagged hierarchy, wether or not it has an explicit | ||
destructor, the parent destructor sequence is called. | ||
|
||
Destructors are called at the same place as when Ada finalization is run. | ||
|
||
|
||
Reference-level explanation | ||
=========================== | ||
|
||
|
||
Rationale and alternatives | ||
========================== | ||
|
||
Drawbacks | ||
========= | ||
|
||
|
||
Prior art | ||
========= | ||
|
||
Unresolved questions | ||
==================== | ||
|
||
Future possibilities | ||
==================== | ||
|
||
We need a scoped syntax for the destructor. One option is to piggy back on | ||
a separate RFC being written that allows to define attributes directly in | ||
the form of type'attribute name. For example, specifying Write could be done | ||
in the following way: | ||
|
||
.. code-block:: ada | ||
|
||
type T is null record; | ||
|
||
procedure S'Write( | ||
Stream : not null access Ada.Streams.Root_Stream_Type'Class; | ||
Item : in T); | ||
|
||
Using this gives us a new un-scoped notation: | ||
|
||
.. code-block:: ada | ||
|
||
package P is | ||
type T is tagged null record; | ||
|
||
procedure T'Destructor (Self : in out T); | ||
|
||
end P; | ||
|
||
And this can be easily extended to a scoped notation for Destructor as well as | ||
other attributes: | ||
|
||
.. code-block:: ada | ||
|
||
package P is | ||
type T is tagged record | ||
procedure T'Destructor (Self : in out T); | ||
end record; | ||
end P; | ||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it is not necessary, and even potentially dangerous to describe the destruction semantics in these terms, because we don't want to define finalization semantics twice. We should just explain how this maps to the
Finalizable
aspect.