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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3a1c64628a09855b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: usenet@leapheap.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Lack of formal syntax undermines Ada
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <deb5dcf7-ac00-479a-86f7-6a8d496c7f2f@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <e99fb94d-da10-41d2-9f20-7a6ce78d4613@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<tDkMj.181245$cQ1.7493@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.58.34.227
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208265731 9941 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2008 13:22:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:22:11 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.58.34.227;
	posting-account=QVLfzAkAAAA63KKDMkjz_X5cKx2FC2Nc
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 KNDPXS01
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20955
Date: 2008-04-15T06:22:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:

Chris Noonan wrote:
> >As an example, my parser is having trouble with the fragment:
> >task type TT is
> > =A0 pragma priority(12);
> >end TT;
> >Is this legal Ada95 syntax or not?

> As for your code: YES, it is legal!

I'm not so sure.

The relevant section in the LRM boils down to, in this context:

Pragmas are only allowed at any place where the syntax rules
allow an entry_declaration construct; but not in place of
an entry_declaration construct.

It looks to me that the pragma is appearing in place of
an entry_declaration.

Regards,
Chris Noonan