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!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!GWUVM.BITNET!MFELDMAN
From: MFELDMAN@GWUVM.BITNET (Mike Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: strange syntax
Message-ID: <8709221742.AA09055@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22-Sep-87 14:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8709221742.AA09055
Posted: Tue Sep 22 14:15:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Sep-87 05:39:05 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

========================================================================
Dave Emery writes:


>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 ":="?


This looks really quirky to me. I tried it with four compilers: Meridian
1.5, Ada/Ed-PC, TeleSoft 3.1.3 VMS and Verdix 5.4.1 Sun. _All_ rejected
the program, typically with some "bad literal" message, with or without
further propagation. Oddly enough, _all_ accepted the program if a
blank was put after the 1 but before the colon! (i.e. +1 := ).

I cannot imagine a context for : in that position that's not going to
be a := - are there any syntax buffs out there who can explain just what
is ambiguous in that context?