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-Thread: 103376,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Hibou57 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
	grammar ?
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <9012d70c-8d61-4e2e-9eda-c12d48f1d9e1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21> <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
	<37b7e369-01c8-4adf-8d1e-c40fa7e51cea@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.169
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203517322 23656 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2008 14:22:02
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:22:02 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.169;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.23 (Windows NT 5.1; U; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19910
Date: 2008-02-20T06:22:02-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 20 f=E9v, 11:34, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Jeffrey is correct; it is not a "type cast", it is a "type conversion"
> and there is no such thing as "Ada.Unchecked_Cast". Yes, this is nit-
> picking; why would we choose Ada if we didn't care about details and
> wording?

Ok, forgive me for the english mistake : I use either type cast or
type conversion to mean the same thing. I will take care in the futur.

But I'm still not sure about the assertion that it is context free
(while, Ok, the AEM does not tell it is LR(1))

If it need name resolution to figure out what means the construct,
this is not a context-free grammar.

Is this construct the only one of the grammar which is not context-
free, or is there some others ?

It appears to be the only one of the kind, but I'm not sure.

Yannick