From: Rod Chapman <roderick.chapman@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: SPARK syntax and “use type” : lack of feature ?
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 00:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2010-05-26T00:38:49-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b6614f5-9845-41cb-b68a-90c14a43b19e@c7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: d6b90050-e5a7-4e7a-8e1e-62dde45c57de@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com
On May 26, 12:18 am, Phil Thornley <phil.jpthorn...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 25 May, 21:05, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
> > I was doing a syntax check only (I feel it is important to state this, as
> > you come with an example using Derives clauses).
Please don't use the "syntax check only" option - I wish we'd
never put it in there!
There are many many things which are allowed by the (context-free)
grammar used by the parser that are later rejected by the
semantic analyser - generic packages for one as you have
already discovered.
- Rod
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-26 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-24 18:41 SPARK syntax and “use type” : lack of feature ? Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-24 23:01 ` Phil Thornley
2010-05-25 7:29 ` Rod Chapman
2010-05-25 20:16 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-25 20:05 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-25 23:18 ` Phil Thornley
2010-05-26 7:38 ` Rod Chapman [this message]
2010-05-26 10:28 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox