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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.99.54.15 with SMTP id d15mr3053122pga.148.1488032723883;
        Sat, 25 Feb 2017 06:25:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.17.114 with SMTP id p47mr569850otp.6.1488032723841; Sat,
 25 Feb 2017 06:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!e137no1127017itc.0!news-out.google.com!15ni653itm.0!nntp.google.com!e137no1130066itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 06:25:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <o8roe5$3aq$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=47.70.191.121;
 posting-account=XYi0owoAAAC_eOHXu2MQKhBYUNiEUxE2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.70.191.121
References: <a319aa93-f896-48ae-9b87-489b623ab75f@googlegroups.com>
 <5881b0ca-3a11-442e-88ce-18d0a6142c24@googlegroups.com>
 <o8roe5$3aq$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <496a4e77-e687-426c-b1c6-7fc1be7a7489@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: State of the compiler market
From: "Ingo M." <announce@amkade.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:25:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33406
Date: 2017-02-25T06:25:23-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> So what is Annex P?
> 
> http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/rm12_w_tc1/html/RM-P.html

I complained about the BNF already years ago. One poster (anon546) confirmed my concerns. Quote: "The BNF has always been in error with missing definitions. It should be corrected but I think it never will be."

http://compgroups.net/comp.lang.ada/ada-2012-bnf-syntax-summary-incomplete/1413223

Maybe your reference is complete this time, or that I am just confused by the syntax which was (is?) not BNF but a variant of BNF.

Whatever, I will take a closer look at it.

Thanks.