Re: Ada grammar rules for names too permissive?

[olivermkellogg@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 10:45:46 PM UTC+1, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Ada semantic rules use the syntax rules and vice versa. In this case, one 
> does not want to repeat the various rules for interpreting an expanded name 
> (which are part of selected_component).

Understood. Thanks for explaining.

I still think that when using Annex P as the direct basis for a parser it would make sense to narrow down the name related rules.
Along these lines:
Do you think it would be permissible to "solidify" the italics?

E.g. in the case of subtype_mark, in the implementation grammar there could be an actual rule subtype_name with a much narrower definition.
That would avoid forcing the parser to jump through the unnecessary hoops of the heavy weight rule `name'.

- Oliver