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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,64eba6a6b76afc79
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-16 10:30:46 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: okellogg@freenet.de (Oliver Kellogg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: derived_type_definition ::= [abstract] new subtype_ind
 [record_extension_part]
Date: 16 Mar 2003 10:30:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <6a6390b8.0303161030.1ea891ab@posting.google.com>
References: <b4r7ct$9lt$07$1@news.t-online.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.158.9.110
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1047839445 19283 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2003 18:30:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2003 18:30:45 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35389
Date: 2003-03-16T18:30:45+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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