Workbench Add-On/Workbench Add-On - Volume 1.iso/BBS-Archive/Dev/Obrn-A_1.6_lib.lha/oberon-a/texts1.lha/texts/Oberon2.OOP.Text

Text File | 1993-11-02 | 27KB | 602 lines

OBJECT-ORIENTED PROGRAMMING IN OBERON-2


Hanspeter M„ssenb„ck
ETH Z…rich, Institut f…r Computersysteme


ABSTRACT

Oberon-2 is a refined version of Oberon developed at ETH. It introduces
type-bound procedures, read-only export of data, and open array variables.
The For statement is reintroduced. This paper concentrates on type-bound
procedures which make Oberon-2 an object-oriented language with
dynamically-bound messages and strong type checking at compile time.
Messages can also be sent as data packets (extensible records) that are
passed to a handler procedure and are interpreted at run time. This is as
flexible as the Smalltalk message dispatching mechanism. Objects carry type
information at run time which allows dynamic binding of messages, run time
type tests, and the implementation of persistent objects. Oberon-2 is
available on various machines.


OVERVIEW

In 1987, Wirth defined the language Oberon [1]. Compared with its
predecessor Modula-2, Oberon is smaller and cleaner, and it supports type
extension which is a prerequisite for object-oriented programming. Type
extension allows the programmer to extend an existing record type by adding
new fields while preserving the compatibility between the old and the new
type. Operations on a type, however, have to be implemented as ordinary
procedures without syntactic relation to that type. They cannot be redefined
for an extended type. Therefore dynamically-bound messages (which are vital
for object-oriented programming) are not directly supported by Oberon,
although they can be implemented via message records (see below).

Compared to Oberon, Oberon-2 [2] provides type-bound procedures (methods),
read-only export of data, and open array variables. The For statement is
reintroduced after having been eliminated in the step from Modula-2 to
Oberon. This paper concentrates on type-bound procedures and the use of
Oberon-2 for object-oriented programming. The other facilities are described
in the Oberon-2 language report.

Type-bound procedures are operations applicable to variables of a record or
pointer type. They are syntactically associated with that type and can
therefore easily be identified as its operations. They can be redefined for
an extended type and are invoked using dynamic binding. Type-bound
procedures together with type extension make Oberon-2 a true object-oriented
language with dynamically-bound messages and strong type checking at compile
time. Oberon-2 is the result of three years experience of using Oberon and
its experimental offspring Object Oberon [3]. Object-oriented concepts were
integrated smoothly into Oberon without sacrificing the conceptual
simplicity of the language.

Object-oriented programming is based on three concepts: data abstraction,
type extension and dynamic binding of a message to the procedure that
implements it. All these concepts are supported by Oberon-2. We first
discuss type extension since this is perhaps the most important of the three
notions, and then turn to type-bound procedures, which allow data
abstraction and dynamic binding.


TYPE EXTENSION

Type extension was introduced by Wirth in Oberon. It allows the programmer
to derive a new type from an existing one by adding data fields to it.
Consider the declarations

  TYPE
    PointDesc  = RECORD x, y: INTEGER END;
    PointDesc3D  = RECORD (PointDesc) z: INTEGER END;

    Point  = POINTER TO PointDesc;
    Point3D  = POINTER TO PointDesc3D;

    PointXYZ  = POINTER TO PointDescXYZ;
    PointDescXYZ  = RECORD x, y, z: INTEGER END;

PointDesc3D is an extension of PointDesc (specified by the type name in
parentheses that follows the symbol RECORD). It starts with the same fields
as PointDesc but contains an additional field z. Conversely, PointDesc is
called the base type of PointDesc3D. The notion of type extension also
applies to pointers. Point3D is an extension of Point and Point is the base
type of Point3D. Type extension is also called inheritance because one can
think of PointDesc3D as "inheriting" the fields x and y from PointDesc.

The crucial point about type extension is that Point3D is compatible with
Point, while PointXYZ is not (though it also points to a record with the
fields x and y). If p is of type Point and p3 is of type Point3D the
assignment

  p := p3

is legal since p3 is an (extended) Point and therefore assignment compatible
with p, which is a Point. The reverse assignment p3 := p is illegal since p
is only a Point but not a Point3D like p3. The same compatibility rules
apply to records.

Objects which are pointers or records have both a static type and a dynamic
type. The static type is the type which the object is declared of. The
dynamic type is the type which the object has at run time. It may be an
extension of its static type. After the assignment p := p3 the dynamic type
of p is Point3D, while its static type is still Point. That means that the
field p3^.z is still part of the block that p points to, but it cannot be
accessed via p since the static type of p does not contain a field p^.z
(Figure 1).


  Figure 1.  Assignment between the extended object and the base object

Objects like p are polymorphic, i.e. they may assume various types at run
time. The actual type an object has at run time can be examined with a type
test:

  p IS Point3D

yields TRUE if the dynamic type of p is Point3D (or an extension of it) and
FALSE otherwise. A type guard

  p(Point3D)

asserts (i.e., tests at run time) that the dynamic type of p is Point3D (or
an extension of it). If so, the designator p(Point3D) is regarded as having
the static type Point3D. If not, the program is aborted. Type guards allow
the treatment of p as a Point3D object. Therefore the following assignments
are possible: p(Point3D)^.z := 0; p3 := p(Point3D);

For objects of a record type, the static and the dynamic types are usually
the same. If pd is of type PointDesc and pd3 is of type PointDesc3D, the
assignment pd := pd3 does not change the dynamic type of pd. Only the fields
pd3.x and pd3.y are moved to pd, and the dynamic type of pd remains
PointDesc. The compatibility between records is of minor importance except
when pd is a formal variable parameter and pd3 is its corresponding actual
parameter. In this case the dynamic type of pd is Point3D and the component
pd3^.z is not stripped off.

The motivation for type extension is that an algorithm which works with type
Point can also work with any of its extensions. For example, the procedure

  PROCEDURE Move (p: Point; dx, dy: INTEGER);
  BEGIN INC(p.x, dx); INC(p.y, dy)
  END Move;

can be called not only as Move(p, dx, dy) but also as Move(p3, dx, dy).


TYPE-BOUND PROCEDURES

Type-bound procedures serve to implement abstract data types with
dynamically bound operations. An abstract data type is a user-defined type
which encapsulates private data together with a set of operations that can
be used to manipulate this data. In Modula-2 or in Oberon an abstract data
type is implemented as a record type and a set of procedures. The
procedures, however, are syntactically unrelated to the record, which
sometimes makes it hard to identify the data and the operations as an
entity.

In Oberon-2, procedures can be connected to a data type explicitly. Such
procedures are called type-bound. The interface of an abstract data type for
texts may look like this:

  TYPE
    Text = POINTER TO TextDesc;
    TextDesc = RECORD
      data: ... (*(hidden) text data*)
      PROCEDURE (t: Text) Insert (string: ARRAY OF CHAR; pos: LONGINT);
      PROCEDURE (t: Text) Delete (from, to: LONGINT);
      PROCEDURE (t: Text) Length (): LONGINT;
    END;

This gives a nice overview showing which operations can be applied to
variables of type Text. However, it would be unwise to implement the
operations directly within the record since that would clutter up the
declarations with code. In fact, the above view of Text was extracted from
the source code with a browser tool. The actual Oberon-2 program looks like
this:

  TYPE
    Text = POINTER TO TextDesc;
    TextDesc = RECORD
      data:  (*(hidden) text data*)
    END;

  PROCEDURE (t: Text) Insert (string: ARRAY OF CHAR; pos: LONGINT);
  BEGIN ...
  END Insert;

  PROCEDURE (t: Text) Delete (from, to: LONGINT);
  BEGIN ...
  END Delete;

  PROCEDURE (t: Text) Length (): LONGINT;
  BEGIN ...
  END Length;

This notation allows the programmer to declare the procedures in arbitrary
order and after the type and variable declarations, eliminating the problem
of forward references. The procedures are associated with a record by the
type of a special formal parameter (t: Text) written in front of the
procedure name. This parameter denotes the operand to which the operation is
applied (or the receiver of a message, as it is called in object-oriented
terminology). Type-bound procedures are considered local to the record to
which they are bound. In a call they must be qualified with an object of
this type, e.g.

  txt.Insert("Hello", 0)

We say that the message Insert is sent to txt, which is called the receiver
of the message. The variable txt serves two purposes: it is passed as an
actual parameter to t and it is used to select the procedure Insert bound to
type Text.

If Text is extended, the procedures bound to it are automatically also bound
to the extended type. However, they can be redefined by a new procedure with
the same name (and the same parameter list), which is explicitly bound to
the extended type. Let's assume that we want to have a more sophisticated
type StyledText which not only maintains ASCII text but also style
information. The operations Insert and Delete have to be redefined since
they now also have to update the style data, whereas the operation Length is
not affected by styles and can be inherited from Text without redefinition.

  TYPE
    StyledText = POINTER TO StyledTextDesc;
    StyledTextDesc = RECORD (TextDesc)
      style:  ... (*(hidden) style data*)
    END;

  PROCEDURE (st: StyledText) Insert (string: ARRAY OF CHAR; pos: LONGINT);
  BEGIN
    ... update style data ...
    st.Insert^ (string, pos)
  END Insert;

  PROCEDURE (st: StyledText) Delete (from, to: LONGINT);
  BEGIN
    ... update style data ...
    st.Delete^ (from, to)
  END Delete;

We do not want to rewrite Insert and Delete completely but only want to
update the style data and let the original procedures bound to Text do the
rest of the work. In a procedure bound to type T, a procedure bound to the
base type of T is called by appending the symbol ^ to the procedure name in
a call (st.Insert^ (string, pos)).


Dynamic binding

Because of the compatibility between a type and its extensions, a variable
st of type StyledText can be assigned to a variable t of type Text. The
message t.Insert then invokes the procedure Insert which is bound to
StyledText, although t has been declared of type Text. This is called
dynamic binding: the called procedure is the one which is bound to the
dynamic type of the receiver.

Polymorphism and dynamic binding are the cornerstones of object-oriented
programming. They allow viewing an object as an abstract entity which may
assume various concrete shapes at run time. In order to apply an operation
to such an object, one does not have to distinguish between its variants.
One rather sends a message telling the object what to do. The object
responds to the message by invoking that procedure which implements the
operation for the dynamic type of the receiver.

In Oberon-2, all type-bound procedures are called using dynamic binding. If
static binding is desired (which is slightly more efficient), ordinary
procedures can be used. However, one must be aware that statically-bound
procedures cannot be redefined.


Information hiding

One important property of abstract data types is information hiding, i.e.
the implementation of private data should not be visible to clients. It
seems as if information hiding is violated in Oberon-2 since all record
components can be accessed if they are qualified with an object of that
record type. However, hiding components is not the business of records; it
is the business of modules. A module can export record fields (and
type-bound procedures) selectively. In client modules only the exported
components are visible. If none of the record fields is exported the private
data of the record is hidden to clients.


Notation

Object-oriented languages differ in the notations they use for classes and
type-bound procedures. We want to explain why we chose the above notation in
Oberon-2.

Classes. We refrained from introducing classes but rather expressed them by
the well-known concept of records. Classes are record types with procedures
bound to them.

Methods. Methods are expressed by type-bound procedures. The fact that their
invocation is driven by the dynamic type of an object is reflected by the
qualification with an explicit receiver parameter. In a call, the actual
receiver is written in front of the message name (x.P); therefore the formal
receiver is also declared in front of the procedure name (PROCEDURE (x: T) P
(...)).

We refrained from duplicating the headers of bound procedures in record
declarations as it is done in C++ [6] and Object-Pascal [8]. This keeps
declarations short and avoids unpleasant redundancy. Changes to a procedure
header would otherwise have to be made at two places and the compiler would
have to check the equality of the headers. If the programmer wants to see
the record together with all its procedures, he uses a browser to obtain the
information. We believe that the working style of programmers has changed in
recent years. Programs are written more interactively and high performance
tools can be used to collect information that had to be written down
explicitly in former days.

The procedures bound to a type can be declared in any order. They can even
be mixed with procedures bound to a different type. If procedures had to be
declared within a type declaration, indirect recursion between procedures
bound to different types would make awkward forward declarations necessary
for one-pass compilation.

Receiver. In most object-oriented languages the receiver of a message is
passed as an implicit parameter that can be accessed within a method by a
predeclared name such as self or this. The data of a class can be accessed
in a method without qualification. For example, in C++ the method Delete
would look like this:

  void Text::Delete (int from, to) {
    length = length - (to-from);
    // field length of the receiver is accessed without qualification
    ... NotifyViews(this) ...
    // receiver is accessed with the predeclared name this }

We believe that it is better to declare the receiver explicitly, which
allows the programmer to choose a meaningful name for it (not just "this").
The implicit passing of the receiver seems to be a little bit mysterious. We
also believe that it contributes to the clarity of programs if fields of the
receiver must always be qualified with the receiver's name. This is
especially helpful if fields are accessed which are declared in the
receiver's base type. In Oberon-2, Delete is therefore written in the
following way:

  PROCEDURE (t: Text) Delete (from, to: LONGINT);
  BEGIN
    t^.length := t^.length - (to-from);
    (* length is explicitly qualified with t *)
    ... NotifyViews(t) ...
    (* receiver has the user-defined name t *)
  END Delete;


MESSAGE RECORDS

Type-bound procedures are one way to implement messages. Another way is to
take the phrase "sending a message" literally and to view a message as a
packet of data that is sent to an object. This requires message records of
various kinds and lengths and a handler per object that accepts all these
message records. Type-extension provides these two mechanisms. Messages are
extensible records and the handler is a procedure which takes a message as a
parameter and interprets it according to the dynamic type of the message.

Consider a graphics editor. The objects in this application are various
kinds of figures (rectangles, circles, lines, etc.) and the operations are
drawing, moving, and filling the figures. For every operation a message
record is declared which contains the arguments of the message as record
fields:

  TYPE
    Message   = RECORD END;
    DrawMsg   = RECORD (Message) END;
    MoveMsg   = RECORD (Message) dx, dy: INTEGER END;
    FillMsg   = RECORD (Message) pat: Pattern END;

Next, the type Figure is declared, which contains the handler as a procedure
variable:

  TYPE
    Figure = POINTER TO FigureDesc;
    FigureDesc = RECORD
      x, y, width, height: INTEGER;
      handle: PROCEDURE (f: Figure; VAR m: Message)
    END;

The handler has two parameters: the receiver of the message (which is a
Figure here) and the message itself. Since m is of type Message, all message
types that are derived from it (DrawMsg, MoveMsg, etc.) are compatible.
Note, that m is a variable parameter, so it may have a dynamic type which is
an extension of its static type Message. Every extension of Figure (i.e.,
Rectangle, Circle, Line) has its own handler that is installed in objects of
this type. The handler for rectangle objects might look like this:

  PROCEDURE HandleRect (f: Figure; VAR m: Message);
  BEGIN
    WITH
      m(DrawMsg) DO ... draw the rectangle f ...
    | m(MoveMsg) DO ... move the rectangle f by (m.dx, m.dy) ...
    | m(FillMsg) DO ... fill the rectangle f with m.pat ...
    ELSE (* ignore the message *)
    END
  END HandleRect;

The With statement is a regional type guard. It has been extended in
Oberon-2 to accept multiple variants. The above With statement should be
read as follows: if the dynamic type of m is DrawMsg, then the statement
sequence following the first DO symbol is executed and a type guard
m(DrawMsg) is implicitly applied to every occurrence of m; else if the
dynamic type of m is MoveMsg, then the statement sequence following the
second DO symbol is executed where every occurrence of m is regarded as a
MoveMsg; and so on. If no variant matches and if no else part is specified
program execution is aborted. Using objects of type Figure requires the
following actions:

  VAR f: Figure; r: Rectangle; move: MoveMsg;

  NEW(r); r^.handle := HandleRect;
  (*initialize the object by installing the rectangle handler*)
  ... f := r ...
  move.dx := ...; move.dy := ...;  (*set up the message record*)
  f.handle(f, move);  (*send the message*)
      (*possibly retrieve output arguments from the message record*)

The use of message records has both advantages and disadvantages.


Advantages

- The message can be stored in a variable and can be sent later on.
- The same message can easily be distributed to more than one object
(message broadcast). Consider the case where all figures have to be moved.
With type-bound procedures, the caller would have to traverse the list of
figures and send a Move message to every figure:

  f := firstFigure; WHILE f # NIL DO f.Move(dx, dy); f := f^.next END

The structure of the figure list must be known to the caller (which is not
always the case) and the code for the list traversal is duplicated in every
client. With message records one can implement the list traversal in a
procedure Broadcast to which the message is passed as a parameter:

  PROCEDURE (lst: List) Broadcast (VAR m: Message);
    VAR f: Figure;
  BEGIN
    f := lst^.first; WHILE f # NIL DO f.handle(f, m); f := f^.next END
  END Broadcast;

This allows hiding the list structure and keeping the code for the list
traversal in a single place.

- An object can be sent a message which it does not understand. It may
ignore the message or delegate it to another object. For example, a Fill
message can be broadcast to all figures although only rectangles and circles
understand it, but not lines. With type-bound procedures this is not
possible because the compiler checks if a message is understood by the
receiver.
- The handler can be replaced at run time, changing the behaviour of an
object.
- Message records can be declared in different modules. This allows adding
new messages to a type when a new module is written.


Disadvantages

- It is not immediately clear which operations belong to a type, i.e. which
messages an object understands. To find that out, one has to know which
handler is installed at run time and how this handler is implemented.
- The compiler cannot check if a message is understood by an object. Faulty
messages can be detected only at run time and may go undetected for months.
- Messages are interpreted by the handler at run time and in sequential
order. This is much slower than the dynamic binding mechanism of type-bound
procedures, which requires only a table lookup with a constant offset.
Message records are much like messages in Smalltalk [7], which are also
interpreted at run time.
- Sending a message (i.e., filling and unfilling message records) is
somewhat clumsy.

In general, type-bound procedures are clearer and type-safe, while message
records are more flexible. One should use type-bound procedures whenever
possible. Message records should only be used where special flexibility is
needed, e.g., for broadcasting a message or for cases where it is important
to add new messages to a type later without changing the module that
declares the type.


PERSISTENT OBJECTS

Our implementation of Oberon-2 allows persistent objects. An object is
called persistent if it outlives the program which created it. To make an
object persistent, it must be possible to write it to a file and to
reconstruct it from that external format. In Oberon-2, every record object
carries a descriptor of its dynamic type. Among other things this descriptor
contains the type name as a pair (module name, type name). It is possible to
implement a procedure GetName which returns the type name of a given object,
and a procedure New which creates and returns an object of a type specified
by a type name.

  DEFINITION Objects;
    PROCEDURE GetName(object: Object; VAR typeName: ARRAY OF CHAR);
    PROCEDURE New(typeName: ARRAY OF CHAR; VAR object: Object);
  END Objects.

If x is an extension of Object and understands a Load and a Store message,
procedures to externalize and internalize x are (a Rider is a position in a
file and is used to read and write data)

  PROCEDURE WriteObject(VAR r: Files.Rider; x: Object);
    VAR name: ARRAY 64 OF CHAR;
  BEGIN
    Objects.GetName(x, name);
    i := -1; REPEAT INC(i); Files.Write(r, name[i]) UNTIL name[i] = 0X;
    IF x # NIL THEN x.Store(r) END  (* store fields of x to r *)
  END WriteObject;

  PROCEDURE ReadObject(VAR r: Files.Rider; VAR x: Object);
    VAR name: ARRAY 64 OF CHAR;
  BEGIN
    i := -1; REPEAT INC(i); Files.Read(r, name[i]) UNTIL name[i] = 0X;
    Objects.New(name, x);
    IF x # NIL THEN x.Load(r) END  (* read fields of x from r *)
  END ReadObject;

More details on persistent objects as well as on optimization aspects can be
found in [5].


IMPLEMENTATION

In order to support object-oriented programming certain information about
objects must be available at run time: The dynamic type of an object is
needed for type tests and type guards. A table with the addresses of the
type-bound procedures is needed for calling them using dynamic binding.
Finally, the Oberon system has a garbage collector which needs to know the
locations of pointers in dynamically allocated records. All this information
is stored in so-called type descriptors of which there is one for every
record type at run time.

The dynamic type of a record corresponds to the address of its type
descriptor. For dynamically allocated records this address is stored in a
so-called type tag which precedes the actual data and which is invisible for
the programmer. If f is of dynamic type Rectangle (an extension of Figure),
the run-time data structures are shown in Figure 2.



  Figure 2.  A variable f of dynamic type Rectangle, the record f points to,
  and its type descriptor

Since both the table of procedure addresses and the table of pointer offsets
must have a fixed offset from the type descriptor address, and since both
may grow when the type is extended and further procedures or pointers are
added, the tables are located at the opposite ends of the type descriptor
and grow in different directions.

A message v.P is implemented as v^.tag^.ProcTab[Index-of-P]. The procedure
table index Indexp is known for every type-bound procedure P at compile
time. A type test of the form v IS T is translated into
v^.tag^.BaseTypes[ExtensionLevel-of-T] = TypDescAdrT. Both the extension
level of a record type and the address of its type descriptor are known at
compile time. For example, the extension level of Figure is 0 (it has no
base type), and the extension level of Rectangle is 1.

Type-bound procedures cause no memory overhead in objects (the type tag was
already needed in Oberon-1). They cause only minimal run-time overhead
compared to ordinary procedures. On a Ceres computer (NS32532 processor) a
dynamically-bound procedure call is less than 10 % slower than a
statically-bound call [3]. Measured over a whole program this difference is
insignificant.

More details on the implementation of Oberon, particularly on the garbage
collector, can be found in [4] and [5].


AVAILABILITY

Oberon-2 was developed on the Ceres computer and has been ported to several
other machines. Currently it is available on Sun's SparcStation, on
Digital's DECstation, and on IBM's RS/6000. The compiler and the whole
Oberon system (garbage collection, command activation, dynamic loading,
etc.) is available from ETH without charge. It can be obtained via anonymous
internet file transfer ftp (hostname: neptune.inf.ethz.ch, internet address:
129.132.101.33, directory: Oberon).


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Oberon-2 is the result of many discussions among the members of our
institute. It was particularly influenced by the ideas of N.Wirth,
J.Gutknecht, and J.Templ. The compiler and the system were ported to other
machines by R.Crelier, J.Templ, M.Franz, and M.Brandis.


REFERENCES

1.  Wirth, N "The Programming Language Oberon" Software Practice and
  Experience, Vol 18, No 7, (July 1988), pp 671-690.
2.  M„ssenb„ck, H "The Programming Language Oberon-2" Computer Science
  Report 160, ETH Z…rich (May 1991).
3.  M„ssenb„ck, H and Templ, J "Object Oberon - A Modest Object-Oriented
  Language" Structured Programming, Vol 10, No 4 (1989), pp 199-207.
4.  Wirth, N and Gutknecht, J "The Oberon System" Computer Science Report
  88, ETH Z…rich (1988).
5.  Pfister, C and Heeb, B and Templ, J "Oberon Technical Notes" Computer
  Science Report 156, ETH Z…rich (March 1991).
6.  Stroustrup, B "The C++ Programming Language" Addison-Wesley (1986).
7.  Goldberg, A and Robson, D "Smalltalk-80, The Language and its
  Implementation", Addison-Wesley (1983).
8.  Tesler, L "Object-Pascal" Structured Language World, Vol 9, No 3,
  (1985).