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!34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_(Yannick_Duch=EAne)?="
 <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 10:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <cf265246-91c7-4d08-b9d0-05dd91d9ee82@34g2000hsz.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>
	<9012d70c-8d61-4e2e-9eda-c12d48f1d9e1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<47bc40e7$0$21890$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.207
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203532469 5570 127.0.0.1 (20 Feb 2008 18:34:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.207;
	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:19916
Date: 2008-02-20T10:34:20-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 20 f=E9v, 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 ::=3D
>	identifier[(static_expression)]
>	| Access
>	| Delta
>	| Digits

Have a nice day, and lets be fairy