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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b7d3a51d0d8b6ee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:28:08 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Compiler quality
References: <20081115101632.5f98c596@cube.tz.axivion.com>
 <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com>
 	<9cb27caa-8e9f-4123-ad36-4980c3032722@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
 	<Y1lXk.44171$_Y1.18421@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 	<492e7554$0$30237$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <8fbe700c-9b80-46b5-8ebe-8d3ef8fe41ea@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
 <135789fa-1261-4c2f-9fa7-3225d19ecc00@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <135789fa-1261-4c2f-9fa7-3225d19ecc00@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <492fc7bc$0$31869$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Nov 2008 11:28:12 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3a12424d.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=7WW<mQ8C056kUFX=Y?aLP;McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9`0T4ce02150;9OJDO8_SK6NSZ1n^B98i:o]OQ:?XbDT9
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2829
Date: 2008-11-28T11:28:12+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin wrote:

> To be fair to anon...that's not a SYNTAX bug. His claim was that
> compilers should be able to be 100% tested for syntax bugs by limiting
> the input so much that's it becomes practical to do on current
> machines.

Considering the Ada 83 rule that 'Base must be prefixed to
'Another_Attribute (i.e., have context), do Ada compilers
typically  check this rule in the parts handling syntax?
(In the case of GNAT, the sem*.ad? files refer to the 'Base
attribute, AFAICS.)