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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3b05f12bd7a2a871 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Lexical Conundrum Date: 1998/02/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 327720332 References: <01bd3d80$101287c0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 888209399 26067 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Keywords: parsing; ambiguity Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Duff says <<>Now, from chapter 2 of the RM, one might get the impression that this could >be parsed as five lexical elements (three identifiers and two apostrophes). I think 2.2(7) makes it clear that the above is three lexical elements, not five. >> I am puzzled. 2.2(7) says 7 One or more separators are allowed between any two adjacent lexical elements, before the first of each compilation, or after the last. At least one separator is required between an identifier, a reserved word, or a numeric_literal and an adjacent identifier, reserved word, or numeric_ literal. But neither the 3 token nor the 5 token interpretations have or need separators, so how is this paragraph relevant? Not that there is a problem anyway!!!!