From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:5e90:: with SMTP id
 h138mr28881067itb.27.1546275916915;
        Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:05:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:308d:: with SMTP id w135mr466085oiw.0.1546275916658;
 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!q69no39386itb.0!news-out.google.com!v141ni80ita.0!nntp.google.com!q69no39382itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:05:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3d2749b5-dea5-47b3-9521-688f4f846e0d@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2003:e7:ff1c:486:d63d:7eff:fe98:7b00;
 posting-account=Md_OIgoAAAAkZyQ6nYoc3WBIThMpPfV7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2003:e7:ff1c:486:d63d:7eff:fe98:7b00
References: <b3tlui$vl3$07$1@news.t-online.com>
 <73eb9d07-b3cf-4d3b-9802-eeb148a0c2e0@googlegroups.com>
 <0d16f930-33ce-4e62-bc63-4719199b4e02@googlegroups.com>
 <dabb58f2-594e-4e2b-82cb-e7b20178821b@googlegroups.com>
 <3d2749b5-dea5-47b3-9521-688f4f846e0d@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0e9253a0-b5ab-4f87-aa63-a9b2caa575d0@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ANTLR grammar for Ada available
From: olivermkellogg@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:05:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55141
Date: 2018-12-31T09:05:16-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:32:50 PM UTC+1, Vincent DIEMUNSCH wrote:
> [...]
> Hi Alex,
> 
> You are certainly right about the quality of the generated AST, superior in
> V4. My point was simply that, from a pure parser perspective, the ability
> of backtracking and memorizing previous attempts, as it is done in V4,
> although more powerful, is not necessary for parsing the Ada language.
> Hence it seemed to me perfectly reasonable to stay in V3 for Ada, if the
> runtime support already exists.

I agree and would add that I actually prefer working with the less sophisticated V2/V3 technology because it elicits weaknesses in the RM Annex P grammar which might go unnoticed using the more powerful V4 technology.
See my posting "Ada grammar rules for names too permissive" [1].

- Oliver

[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.ada/U5e7j_b0Yzs