From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.m.dowie@no.spam.ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Ada95 BNF
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:18:30 +0100
Date: 2001-05-03T20:18:30+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99iI6.18964$Kt2.2053818@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: uk83yv1su.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov
Ok... this seems a little strange to me - but if those are the rules! :-)
Is it really that hard to come up with a BNF that does actually match
what the language does allow?
"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uk83yv1su.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
> Just because something is allowed by the syntax, doesn't mean it is
> allowed by the language. See the appropriate LRM section for the real
> rules. In this case, 'parent_unit_name' is first discussed in 10.1.1,
> which doesn't actually help that much.
>
> > Shouldn't package_unit_name be defined as an Identifier?..
>
> A 'parent_unit_name' can be of the form ancestor.parent, which is not
> an "identifier". So "name" is appropriate.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-03 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-03 12:23 Ada95 BNF Martin Dowie
2001-05-03 16:24 ` Stephen Leake
2001-05-03 19:18 ` Martin Dowie [this message]
2001-05-04 9:27 ` Marius Amado Alves
2001-05-08 14:53 ` Tucker Taft
2001-05-09 6:18 ` Martin Dowie
2001-05-09 13:47 ` Ted Dennison
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-05-04 5:48 Christoph Grein
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox