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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,54227ec6250b0edb
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.73 with SMTP id qs9mr1024267pbc.7.1341119187197;
        Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 l9ni4836pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anon@att.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012 BNF syntax summary incomplete?
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 05:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jsolsg$jn1$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <d7564f4d-4fc2-4666-bd1e-f3936f477217@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: anon@anon.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: wN5xtwN1MibsOwuNc6K1Jw.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0
Date: 2012-07-01T05:06:25+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


The BNF has always been in error with missing definitions. It should be 
corrected but I think it never will be. 

An example is "static_simple_expression" which was shown in the BNF 
of Ada 83 to current but has never been defined in BNF only in the 
LRM text.

One can understand that "static_simple_expression"  is a 
"simple_expression" that also follows the "static" 
definition (RM 4.9)

   4.9 Static Expressions and Static Subtypes

The others can be worked out as well like "static_range". is a 
"range" that also following the "static" definition (RM 4.9)


As for the BNF it would start like :


  static_simple_expression ::= [ unary_adding_operator ]
                    static_term  { binary_adding_operator static_term }

  static_term ::= static_factor { multiplying_operator factor }

  static_factor ::= primary [ "**"  static_primary ]
                            | "abs" static_primary
                            | "not" static_primary

  static_primary ::= enumeration_literal
                   | character_literal
                   | named_number
                   | numeric_literal
                   | static_function_call 
                   | static_attributes_expression
                   | static_qualified_expression
                   | ( static_expression )


And so on! It would be nice to have a complete BNF but its a lot of 
work just to add the BNF for the "static" condition.



In <d7564f4d-4fc2-4666-bd1e-f3936f477217@googlegroups.com>, Ingo Marks <it.marks.info@googlemail.com> writes:
>It seems to me that there are there missing items in the Ada 2012 BNF Syntax
>
>http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-P.html
>
>For instance, the following items are used but not declared:
>
>- ancestor_subtype_indication
>- aspect_identifier
>- ...
>- selecting_expression
>- static_simple_expression
>
>There are about 50 items missing. Are they identical with the Ada95 specs? For instance,
>
>http://cuiwww.unige.ch/isi/bnf/Ada95/static_simple_expression.html
>
>If not, where can I find the complete BNF syntax?
>
>Thanks for advice.
>Ingo