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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,69209fe4a3017fba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: recent Ada grammar for Ada tools ?
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus+rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <46ecfe08_4@news.bluewin.ch>
References: <46ecbc16$1_7@news.bluewin.ch> <46ECD6D3.3030003@obry.net>
	 <46ecfe08_4@news.bluewin.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-Id: <1190305120.14016.6.camel@sonnenregen>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:18:41 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 2007 18:18:41 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3486fcf4.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=eKMh0AUT:fO^B]`=U:WelB4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIdSVT8fNo@lJA:ho7QcPOVC`h_T;28lonIS2G5BC00EFH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2051
Date: 2007-09-20T18:18:41+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 11:58 +0200, Gautier wrote:
> Pascal Obry wrote:
> > Hi Gautier,
> > 
> >> By "Ada tool", I mean ayacc or something newer.
> >> The best match I found is the Ada 95 grammar/lexer for yacc/lex on the
> >> AdaIC
> >> site. But all for C; at least a ayacc/aflex version would be better...
> > 
> > I have an "old" aflex/ayacc link on my homepage. This is a fix for the
> > Irvive University (IIRC) version of aflex/ayacc... I just don't remember
> > if it is Ada83 or Ada95. Maybe a good start.
> > 
> > Pascal.
> 
> Sorry for being unclear: by "a ayacc/aflex version", I meant "a version [of the 
> Ada 95 lexer/parser] for ayacc/aflex".


Wouldn't the sources of the LRM have the grammar rules marked up such
that they can be extracted? I have never seen the sources and
I don't know whether they are publicly available at all (like the
processed sources are).