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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a02:b5e5:: with SMTP id y34mr32481766jaj.21.1546371982843;
        Tue, 01 Jan 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c703:: with SMTP id x3mr505537oif.5.1546371982616;
 Tue, 01 Jan 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!q69no62589itb.0!news-out.google.com!v141ni198ita.0!nntp.google.com!k10no62514itk.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <q0e2m8$t6b$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2003:e7:ff1c:45c:d63d:7eff:fe98:7b00;
 posting-account=Md_OIgoAAAAkZyQ6nYoc3WBIThMpPfV7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2003:e7:ff1c:45c:d63d:7eff:fe98:7b00
References: <30ba8954-a19e-4c95-b350-798b0276db41@googlegroups.com>
 <q0e2m8$t6b$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8f1d7dde-b982-42ff-93d6-5d19dac92f3b@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada grammar rules for names too permissive?
From: olivermkellogg@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 19:46:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55153
Date: 2019-01-01T11:46:22-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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