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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!cca!mirror!ishmael!ada-uts!stt
From: stt@ada-uts.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: lexical question
Message-ID: <57900045@ada-uts>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 17:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.57900045
Posted: Mon Sep 21 17:31:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 14:17:17 EDT
References: <28027@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Nf-ID: #R:mitre-bedford.ARPA:-2802700:ada-uts:57900045:000:629
Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    Sep 21 17:31:00 1987
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


As the BOOK says in 2.2:2
  ... an explicit separator is required ... when without
separation, interpretation as a single lexical element is
possible...

In this case, the separator is not required because
"1:=" is not a legal single lexical element, nor
is "1:".  It is true that "1:0:" might be considered
a based literal, except that 2.4.2:1 specifies that
the "base must be at least two and at most sixteen."
However, even if it were "2:" instead of "1:", the lexer
must look beyond the ":" to determine whether the
":" is acting as an allowable replacement for "#" (see
2.10:3).

Tucker Taft c/o Intermetrics, Cambridge, MA