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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada reference manual rule for doubled parentheses around
 if_expression?
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:56:19 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <mporj0$7l4$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <864mkkz2hy.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <87r3nokwpf.fsf@theworld.com><86r3nnjrv2.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <87mvybktvt.fsf@theworld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1438642593 7844 24.196.82.226 (3 Aug 2015 22:56:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:56:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27346
Date: 2015-08-03T17:56:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Bob Duff" <bobduff@theworld.com> wrote in message 
news:87mvybktvt.fsf@theworld.com...
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:
>
...
>> GNAT also accepts this:
>>
>>    function Expression_Function_1 (V : Integer) return Boolean
>>      is (V = V and then True)
>>           or else True;
>>
>> I think that's a bug, because there are no parens surrounding the
>> entire expression.
>
> I agree that's a bug.  It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the
> special rules about conditional/quantified expressions.  Or does it?
>
> If you report this to report@adacore.com, it will get fixed.

Looks like a bug to me, too. I remembered that we had changed something 
about these, but what it was was to accept an aggregate as well as a 
parenthesized expression:

    function Expression_Function_1 (V : Integer) return Rec is (A => 1, B => 
V);

rather than

    function Expression_Function_1 (V : Integer) return Rec is ((A => 1, B 
=> V));

This was another case of double paren elimination. But of course we don't 
have any rules that eliminate all parens!

                                  Randy.