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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,69209fe4a3017fba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.251.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: recent Ada grammar for Ada tools ?
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:17:36 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc3ax9dwvz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <46ecbc16$1_7@news.bluewin.ch> <46ECD6D3.3030003@obry.net>
 <46ecfe08_4@news.bluewin.ch> <1190305120.14016.6.camel@sonnenregen>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1190312257 5765 192.74.137.71 (20 Sep 2007 18:17:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:17:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eW5QC0e59HkkeUIhmE3fXaz+wUo=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2053
Date: 2007-09-20T14:17:36-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus+rm.tsoh@maps.futureapps.de> writes:

> Wouldn't the sources of the LRM have the grammar rules marked up such
> that they can be extracted?

Yes.  In fact, that's already done -- Annex P, "Syntax Summary"
is just that.

However, the RM grammar is not what you want for AYACC, which I believe
is a LALR(1) parser generator.  The RM grammar is ambiguous, for one
thing.  E.g., what is "X(Y)" in the following:

    A := X(Y);

function_call, type_conversion, indexed_component?
If it's a function_call, what is "X" -- name or
implicit_dereference?

According to the grammar, it can be any of the above,
and some I didn't mention.

Here's an interesting part of the RM grammar:

    prefix ::= name | implicit_dereference
    implicit_dereference ::= name

>...I have never seen the sources and
> I don't know whether they are publicly available at all (like the
> processed sources are).

Surely they're publicly available somewhere?
Maybe Randy can tell us.

- Bob