Re: Unary operator after binary operator: legal or not? => Illegal

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

My Typo! Or was I too tied and hungry to see them!

The Final word comes from Ada LRM 4.5.1 ( 17 ). Examples that 
the Ada Committee gave us.

    Y**(-3)              --  parentheses are necessary

This is defined in 83, 95 and 2005 LRM. Which makes it LAW!


To most languages the parentheses are not required.  Actually some 
languages even define the -3 as a numeric_literal. But this difference 
is what makes Ada a pain for some and a delight for others.


But since the expression option is define as "(expression)"
instead of "( expression )" I chose to define the parentheses to 
denote to use the BNF expression instead of the definition found 
in LRM 4.4 ( 1 ).  

Now, If the clause was "( expression )" which this clearly denotes 
that you must have a left parenthese followed by the expression 
which is followed by a right parenthese. And I would have agree 
with you earlier!

But with the example stated in the LRM I can not argue. 

So, I Stand corrected!

As for why I go by "Anon" that my business!


In <1185927237.362545.195380@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,  Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:
>On Jul 31, 4:22 pm, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
>
>> Ada LRM 4.4 ( 6 ) =>   factor ::= primary
>>
>>   +Right
>>   -7
>>
>> Ada LRM 4.4 ( 7 ) =>   primary ::= numeric_literal | .. | (expression)
>>
>>   +Right  => is defined as an expression
>>   -7      => is defined as an expression
>
>What happened to those nice parentheses around "expression" that the
>above syntax rule requires?  Did you think they were there in the RM
>just for decoration?
>
>No wonder you won't post using your real name.
>
>                      -- Adam
>