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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:e387:: with SMTP id
 d129mr31796387ith.40.1546373218662;
        Tue, 01 Jan 2019 12:06:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5395:: with SMTP id h143mr507784oib.6.1546372017686;
 Tue, 01 Jan 2019 11:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!q69no63912itb.0!news-out.google.com!v141ni196ita.0!nntp.google.com!q69no63908itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 11:46:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <30ba8954-a19e-4c95-b350-798b0276db41@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.77.182.20;
 posting-account=W2gdXQoAAADxIuhBWhPFjUps3wUp4RhQ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.77.182.20
References: <30ba8954-a19e-4c95-b350-798b0276db41@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e122967b-fa1e-4d80-9182-f466a2a5acef@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada grammar rules for names too permissive?
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 20:06:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55155
Date: 2019-01-01T11:46:57-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 10:20:41 AM UTC-8, oliverm...@gmail.com wrote:
> - Oliver
> (currently fighting ambiguities in the ANTLR grammar caused by laxity of rules)

This is precisely why I use a generalized LR parser for Emacs Ada mode; I don't have to mess with the published grammar. It works very well in practice.

The LRM is written for people to understand (not computers), and the current style is good for that, I think.