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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_(Yannick_Duch=EAne)?="
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
	grammar ?
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <20b12efa-76ae-4292-a52e-fee682942cef@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21> <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
	<37b7e369-01c8-4adf-8d1e-c40fa7e51cea@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<9012d70c-8d61-4e2e-9eda-c12d48f1d9e1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<47bc40e7$0$21890$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
 <cf265246-91c7-4d08-b9d0-05dd91d9ee82@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>
	<2b943ca7-7b7e-4bfb-b2b5-bf2818e1e56e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<fpihab$6bv$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <4b75dce0-668f-48c9-9302-ff67f33bcf31@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
	<fpkubm$fd6$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <4a29ee44-02b9-456b-a488-24d4f4077de4@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
	<fpn9c3$k6h$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.66.190.242
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203790434 686 127.0.0.1 (23 Feb 2008 18:13:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.66.190.242;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.23 (Windows NT 5.1; U; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20031
Date: 2008-02-23T10:13:53-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hey, there is the annotated reference, and it talk about it :

in 1.1.4, it adds 14.a which says explicitly
> Discussion: {LR(1)} {ambiguous grammar} {grammar (resolution of ambiguity)} {grammar (ambiguous)} The
> grammar given in this International Standard the RM95 is not LR(1). In fact, it is ambiguous; the
> ambiguities are resolved by the overload resolution rules (see 8.6).
So it is Ok :)

Message to Randy : about the other message, I was joking of course. I
though this will seems obvious...any where, every time I'm joking,
every body think I'm serious... that's the trouble with me, I can't
joke without it to happens :(

Have a nice week-end