From: okellogg@freenet.de (Oliver Kellogg)
Subject: Re: derived_type_definition ::= [abstract] new subtype_ind [record_extension_part]
Date: 16 Mar 2003 10:30:45 -0800
Date: 2003-03-16T18:30:45+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a6390b8.0303161030.1ea891ab@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: b4r7ct$9lt$07$1@news.t-online.com
I similar problem exists for the mixing of PROCEDURE
and FUNCTION in the subprogram related rules.
I'm resolving the problem by propagating those tokens
into the tree nodes. Not beautiful, but it works.
OTOH, some of the Ada grammar rules seem overly
detailed. `statement' for example, which resolves to
`simple_statement' or `compound_statement', and then
to the individual statements.
I guess I just don't yet grasp the design rationale of
the Ada grammar in all detail. Does anyone know where to
find such information?
Thanks,
Oliver Kellogg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-16 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-14 2:34 derived_type_definition ::= [abstract] new subtype_ind [record_extension_part] Oliver Kellogg
2003-03-16 18:30 ` Oliver Kellogg [this message]
2003-03-16 23:06 ` Oliver Kellogg
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox