Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?

Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?

[Ingo Marks]

It seems to me that there are there missing items in the Ada 2012 BNF Syntax

http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-P.html

For instance, the following items are used but not declared:

- ancestor_subtype_indication
- aspect_identifier
- ...
- selecting_expression
- static_simple_expression

There are about 50 items missing. Are they identical with the Ada95 specs? For instance,

http://cuiwww.unige.ch/isi/bnf/Ada95/static_simple_expression.html

If not, where can I find the complete BNF syntax?

Thanks for advice.
Ingo

Re: Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?

[Niklas Holsti]

On 12-06-30 21:25 , Ingo Marks wrote:
> It seems to me that there are there missing items in the Ada 2012 BNF Syntax
>
> http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-P.html
>
> For instance, the following items are used but not declared:
>
> - ancestor_subtype_indication

Isn't the word "ancestor" in a different style (italic) from the rest of 
the item? From the syntax point of view, the italic words should be 
ignored; they give semantic information, in this case that the 
subtype_indication identifies, or should identify, an ancestor subtype.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?

[anon]

The BNF has always been in error with missing definitions. It should be 
corrected but I think it never will be. 

An example is "static_simple_expression" which was shown in the BNF 
of Ada 83 to current but has never been defined in BNF only in the 
LRM text.

One can understand that "static_simple_expression"  is a 
"simple_expression" that also follows the "static" 
definition (RM 4.9)

   4.9 Static Expressions and Static Subtypes

The others can be worked out as well like "static_range". is a 
"range" that also following the "static" definition (RM 4.9)


As for the BNF it would start like :


  static_simple_expression ::= [ unary_adding_operator ]
                    static_term  { binary_adding_operator static_term }

  static_term ::= static_factor { multiplying_operator factor }

  static_factor ::= primary [ "**"  static_primary ]
                            | "abs" static_primary
                            | "not" static_primary

  static_primary ::= enumeration_literal
                   | character_literal
                   | named_number
                   | numeric_literal
                   | static_function_call 
                   | static_attributes_expression
                   | static_qualified_expression
                   | ( static_expression )


And so on! It would be nice to have a complete BNF but its a lot of 
work just to add the BNF for the "static" condition.



In <d7564f4d-4fc2-4666-bd1e-f3936f477217@googlegroups.com>, Ingo Marks <it.marks.info@googlemail.com> writes:
>It seems to me that there are there missing items in the Ada 2012 BNF Syntax
>
>http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-P.html
>
>For instance, the following items are used but not declared:
>
>- ancestor_subtype_indication
>- aspect_identifier
>- ...
>- selecting_expression
>- static_simple_expression
>
>There are about 50 items missing. Are they identical with the Ada95 specs? For instance,
>
>http://cuiwww.unige.ch/isi/bnf/Ada95/static_simple_expression.html
>
>If not, where can I find the complete BNF syntax?
>
>Thanks for advice.
>Ingo

Re: Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?

[AdaMagica]

There is this sentence at the very beginning of Annex P:

"This Annex summarizes the complete syntax of the language. See 1.1.4 for a description of the notation used."

And RM 1.1.4(14) says: "If the name of any syntactic category starts with an italicized part, it is equivalent to the category name without the italicized part. The italicized part is intended to convey some semantic information. For example *subtype*_name and *task*_name are both equivalent to name alone."

My invention to use * as an indication of italics that I can't use here.

HTH