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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no 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!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
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 18:39:45 -0600
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fpihab$6bv$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <FWLuj.41404$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>
 <cf265246-91c7-4d08-b9d0-05dd91d9ee82@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>
 <2b943ca7-7b7e-4bfb-b2b5-bf2818e1e56e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1203554444 6527 69.95.181.76 (21 Feb 2008 00:40:44
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:40:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19932
Date: 2008-02-20T18:39:45-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:2b943ca7-7b7e-4bfb-b2b5-bf2818e1e56e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Just to play the fool... a bit : there is a tiny mistake at [ARM
> 12.4-2/2]
> > formal_object_declaration ::=
> >    defining_identifier_list : mode [null_exclusion] subtype_mark [:=
default_expression];
> >    defining_identifier_list : mode access_definition [:=
default_expression];
>
> A "|" is missing :p

This was previously reported.

Anyway, that's a problem only in the printed (combined) version, and not in
the actual standard. It's documented in AI05-0005-1, and will be fixed if
and when there is an updated printed version. (Note that the on-line
versions track the printed ones in order to avoid confusion.)

                           Randy.