From: "Oliver Kellogg" <oliver.kellogg@t-online.de>
Subject: derived_type_definition ::= [abstract] new subtype_ind [record_extension_part]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:34:38 +0100
Date: 2003-03-14T03:34:38+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b4r7ct$9lt$07$1@news.t-online.com> (raw)
The Ada95 grammar has just one rule, derived_type_definition,
to denote both an ordinary derived type and a derived record
extension. How come the distinction is missing?
(When making an abstract syntax tree for Ada, I wonder
whether this is fine-grained enough. In particular, it
doesn't feel right to have just one node representing
both alternatives.)
O. Kellogg
next reply other threads:[~2003-03-14 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-14 2:34 Oliver Kellogg [this message]
2003-03-16 18:30 ` derived_type_definition ::= [abstract] new subtype_ind [record_extension_part] Oliver Kellogg
2003-03-16 23:06 ` Oliver Kellogg
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox