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: 103376,1f96acbbf1e7e66a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:23:23 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: elsewhere
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060530)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: lexical ambiguity
References: <1nozvv83n7lhc.1b3qf0olmyllp$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <n-6dnQKIUdPzIB3Z4p2dnA@rcn.net> <w_8gg.760526$084.110855@attbi_s22>
 <z6ydnZgK5-jrhB7ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@rcn.net>
 <nULgg.1005626$xm3.320354@attbi_s21>
 <9M_gg.1598$O5.554@llslave.llan.ll.mit.edu> <lnirnfnyao.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <t_1hg.764258$084.649755@attbi_s22> <1149590366.8521.5.camel@localhost>
 <tz1wu2tsyp.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <wccd5dl6mx0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <euirncvq7y.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
In-Reply-To: <euirncvq7y.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <44892fd3$0$11064$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Jun 2006 10:22:44 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f49b0527.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=GT]8XIYV;724B[hADX>N=3:ejgIfPPld4jW\KbG]kaM8]kI_X=5Kea6L4D`beN@^E?hP3YJKgE\j<\g==1OPh`C?752lIbgoei<
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4722
Date: 2006-06-09T10:22:44+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

M E Leypold wrote:

>> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8a-REMOVETHIS@m-e-leypold.de> writes:
>>
>>> So now (question to all): Is the following rule enough?
>>>
>>>    - "'" is the beginning of a character literal if the token before
>>>      "'" has not been an identifier (reserved words not counted as
>>>      identifier in this case).

> OK. First a message to Dmitry A. Kazakov and Georg Bauhaus: Sorry, I
> did neither understand all of what you said nor the exact
> implications. But Thanks!

Just a sloppy remark that in ''' the second single quote
isn't the beginning of a character literal even though the
token before it has not been an identifier. Just another case I
could think of.



Georg