Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

usenet@leapheap.co.uk wrote:

> Ada is designed for the construction of high-integrity software
> by validated compilers. Would it not be better to have formal
> Ada lexical and syntactic rules, expressed in regular expression
> and BNF format respectively, even if such rules turn out to be
> not particularly readable?

How will a syntax that is simple for the parser writer cause
the language to be the best one for the programmer?
In fact Ada was reportedly not designed to make the tool writers
life easier.

Some of the ambiguity might in part have been caused by
an original requirement,
http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/steelman/steelman.htm#2
but I can't tell. Actually, there have been arguments in favor
of "overloaded parentheses" here because they permit switching
between array access and function call without notice.