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,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.235.4 with SMTP id ui4mr259982pbc.3.1331239282752;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni3647pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verified compilers?
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:41:15 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <qfy00iemkgcu$.v8dqfa395fup.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <op.v91cleyiule2fv@douda-yannick> <jj3p5v$2tp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <9207716.776.1331054644462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz38>
 <nhzeozam35it$.13mzx8ap4cmdc$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wascesqrule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <4edda5mav3cf$.149pbgyxl1wx5.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9rplcgF5a2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <1psd0g0womgxi.1sle7ol12x3d5.dlg@40tude.net> <jj8v9j$b8g$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1d576lv10h3ax$.lkh58yfbl5dy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9rsb0eFqfrU1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: /bBpnkeEm9kG1v1C1CjDFw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-08T21:41:15+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:10:21 +0200, Niklas Holsti wrote:

> On 12-03-08 11:25 , Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> The point is that I don't care about that or about restricting
>> it to a certain class etc. Because there is no value in such activity at
>> all. BNF is good for *informal* description of the language syntax.
> 
> There is nothing informal about BNF, if it is used correctly.

Same can be said about English or other natural language.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de