Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free grammar ?

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 20 fév, 16:19, Niklas Holsti <niklas.hol...@tidorum.invalid> wrote:
> rule in ARM 9.6(4). Does that make you happy? But look, the
> [...]
> parsability of Ada, so I don't see what your problem is.

Why are you so sad ? this was not in the purpose to pretend there is a
"problem" (except that I suspected an error). I was just curious
beceause I used to read that Ada and Pascal are exemples of unambigous
grammar.

As well, about LR(1), this was not to use it as a reference of
readibility, beceause the humain view of a text is not based on a
LR(1) analisys. A grammart bay be LR(1) while not redable, or the
opposite.

I was just curious and surprised, that's all.

Another exemple I've just came into :
> [ARM 4.1.4]
> attribute_designator ::=
>	identifier[(static_expression)]
>	| Access
>	| Delta
>	| Digits

Have a nice day, and lets be fairy