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,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.post.ch!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
  grammar ?
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:05:15 +0100
Organization: Swisscom IP+ (post doesn't reflect views of Swisscom)
Message-ID: <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.41.146.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: atlas.ip-plus.net 1203501918 21078 194.41.146.1 (20 Feb 2008 10:05:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ip-plus.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:05:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
In-Reply-To: <FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: w03duo.pnet.ch
X-Original-Trace: 20 Feb 2008 11:05:15 +0100, w03duo.pnet.ch
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19905
Date: 2008-02-20T11:05:15+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter schrieb:
> Hibou57 wrote:
>>
>> But as pointed by someone, the grammar is not LR(1), due to the fact
>> (which is common to many other languages), that as an example X(Y) can
>> stand for a type cast, a function call, an array access, or even an
>> array slice, and this cannot be decided without knowledge of the
>> context.

You could also consider X (Y) as a (intrinsic) function in all cases - 
with X being a function which converts Y to type X or a function which 
accesses element Y from array X.

> X (Y) cannot represent a type cast because Ada does not have anything 
> called "type cast".

Not quite, if you consider "type cast" is a unchecked bit pattern copy - 
so if you define:

function X is new Unchecked_Conversion (...);

the X would indeed be a it "type cast".

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com