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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA!emery
From: emery@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Emery)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: lexical question
Message-ID: <8709190147.AA28027@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 18-Sep-87 21:47:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mitre-be.8709190147.AA28027
Posted: Fri Sep 18 21:47:17 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 07:01:21 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Here's a real ada-guru question:  
Is the following program (syntactically) legal?
  package demo is
    max_val : constant := 15;
    -- check the next declaration out carefully...
    foo : integer range 1 .. max_val +1:= 15;
    -- some compilers complain right  ^ there, and say that 1: is not
    -- a legal literal, and then i get all kind of errors...
  end demo;
It's obvious from reading the program what is meant, but must a 
parser be able to determine that +1: breaks down to 3 tokens, "+", "1" 
and ":="?

				dave emery
				emery@mitre-bedford.arpa