Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Sven Barth via fpc-pascal]

Wayne Sherman via fpc-pascal  schrieb am
Mo., 25. Dez. 2023, 15:46:

> On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > In short: To make a EBNF grammar which is 100% correct is not so simple
> > and will make the scheme extremely difficult to understand for a reader.
> > So I prefer to present a simpler version, and mention some limitations
> >  only in the text
> ...
> > There are simply so many exceptions and limitations that the 100% correct
> > diagram would be incomprehensible and needlessly complicated if you
> tried to
> > capture every aspect for the full 100%.
>
> If the EBNF grammar is only a guide provided as documentation for a
> human reader then you might want that.  But if the EBNF grammar is
> used to drive a parser then it needs to be fully complete, accurate,
> and machine readable (see below).
>

The grammar embedded in the documentation is just that: a guide.
Though that doesn't mean that Michael isn't trying to fix as many of the
points that Adriaan mentioned as reasonably possible, because there
obviously have been mistakes and oversights.

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Wayne Sherman via fpc-pascal]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> In short: To make a EBNF grammar which is 100% correct is not so simple
> and will make the scheme extremely difficult to understand for a reader.
> So I prefer to present a simpler version, and mention some limitations
>  only in the text
...
> There are simply so many exceptions and limitations that the 100% correct
> diagram would be incomprehensible and needlessly complicated if you tried to
> capture every aspect for the full 100%.

If the EBNF grammar is only a guide provided as documentation for a
human reader then you might want that.  But if the EBNF grammar is
used to drive a parser then it needs to be fully complete, accurate,
and machine readable (see below).

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Anyway, I strive to make the syntax complete and correct. When it is ready,
> I can send it in to be added as an Appendix to the Language Reference
> manual. I have an ebfn-driven general (back-parsing) parser that already
> works for Oberon-0 end UCSD-Pascal. So, the ebnf can be tested.

Is your parser able to read and validate the EBNF grammar itself for
syntax and correctness (i.e. the grammar is complete and consistent) ?
 Can your parser be used with the EBNF grammar to parse and validate
Pascal code and report syntax problems?
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:


Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:

This is not correct either, as it suggests that ( ... ) is correct. It is 
not, if you use ... there must be other arguments present.


That is offending the reader: "You are to stupid to be given complete 
information".


That is a load of nonsense.

I agree that logical and correct thinking is a necessity.
I agree that modern teaching misses the point entirely.

But even in classical schooling you don't start by teaching general 
relativity theory to first-year secondary school students either. 
You need to build it up.


There are simply so many exceptions and limitations that the 100% correct
diagram would be incomprehensible and needlessly complicated if you tried to
capture every aspect for the full 100%.

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:

This is not correct either, as it suggests that ( ... ) is correct. It 
is not, if you use ... there must be other arguments present.


That is offending the reader: "You are to stupid to be given complete 
information".

It misses the point that programmers must be taught to think precise, abstract, conceptually and 
logically. For the same reason, modern math teaching doesn't work. It tries to circumvent abstract 
thinking by showing pictures. But there is no alternative to learning to think in abstract 
concepts. The more stupid education becomes, the less their pupils do learn 
.


If the language has the complexity built-in, there is no alternative but to be 
honest about it.


You're also missing the ";" in front of the "...".


Thanks for pointing that out. I have added it.

Regards,

Adriaan van Os
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:


Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:


I added univ and documented it.


Something seems to have gone wrong with the  defintion on page 
212.


Corrected, thanks.



Having a better look, the  rule defines just one 
parameter. So, we get instead


formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" 
parameter-declaration } ] [ "..." ] ")" .

parameter-list = formal-parameter-list .

comprising also the "ellipsis" parameter, which, according to Appendix D.6 
of the Programmer's Manual is functionally equal to the varargs

keyword.


Added to the diagrams.

I changed the diagram to be more clear (hopefully).


But the rule for  on page 211 now suggests that  "..." 
can be used in the middle of the other declarations, which is not true.


I am aware of this. It is mentioned in the text, see below why this is so.




	formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" 
parameter-declaration } ] [ "..." ] ")" .


This is not correct either, as it suggests that ( ... ) is correct. 
It is not, if you use ... there must be other arguments present.

You're also missing the ";" in front of the "...".

Likewise using parameter-declaration is not really correct, as it suggests that
parameters with default values can appear on any location in the list.
That is not correct, they must be the last parameters and cannot be followed
by a parameter without default value.

Likewise, "array of const" with a "cdecl" call-modifier can only appear as last
element in the list (it is translated to varargs). This is another
limitation. There are some limitations for possible combinations.

In short: To make a EBNF grammar which is 100% correct is not so simple and
will make the scheme extremely difficult to understand for a reader.

So I prefer to present a simpler version, and mention some limitations only in 
the
text:

That ... must be the last parameter is just one of them.




Can't a variable also be qualified ? Therefore ?

variable-reference = qualified-identifier .


Yes.


I didn't see a rule for  yet in the Language Reference.


I added it.





But to parse that, the rules for  and  
need something like an , don't they ?


Yes, I had come to this conclusion myself, and I added it.


I can't find the change yet.


That should be fixed now.

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:


I added univ and documented it.


Something seems to have gone wrong with the  defintion on page 212.


Having a better look, the  rule defines just one 
parameter. So, we get instead

formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" parameter-declaration } ] [ 
"..." ] ")" .
parameter-list = formal-parameter-list .

comprising also the "ellipsis" parameter, which, according to Appendix D.6 of 
the Programmer's Manual is functionally equal to the varargs
keyword.


Added to the diagrams.

I changed the diagram to be more clear (hopefully).


But the rule for  on page 211 now suggests that  "..." can be used in the 
middle of the other declarations, which is not true.


formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" parameter-declaration } ] [ 
"..." ] ")" .


Can't a variable also be qualified ? Therefore ?

variable-reference = qualified-identifier .


Yes.


I didn't see a rule for  yet in the Language Reference.



But to parse that, the rules for  and  need 
something like an , don't they ?


Yes, I had come to this conclusion myself, and I added it.


I can't find the change yet.

Regards,

Adriaan van Os



___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:


Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:


The following zip file contains the updated documentation:
http://downloads.freepascal.org/fpc/beta/3.2.4-rc1/docs/doc-pdf.zip

Besides correcting your remarks, I did a general overhaul:
- I changed the use of space character in syntactic elements to dash (-)
- Improved some diagrams.
- synchronized some syntactical elements.
- Tried to make sure every syntactical element has a definition.


Sorry, but are you sure this is the right download for all mentioned changes 
?


No, the git submodule was not yet up-to-date when I built the docs.

Should be OK now, I uploaded a new version.

Sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out !

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:


The following zip file contains the updated documentation:
http://downloads.freepascal.org/fpc/beta/3.2.4-rc1/docs/doc-pdf.zip

Besides correcting your remarks, I did a general overhaul:
- I changed the use of space character in syntactic elements to dash (-)
- Improved some diagrams.
- synchronized some syntactical elements.
- Tried to make sure every syntactical element has a definition.


Sorry, but are you sure this is the right download for all mentioned changes  ?

Regards,

Adriaan van Os
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:


Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

32. Are the set operators "include", "exclude" missing in the syntax 
diagrams ? Is "><" missing (specifically) as set operator in the syntax 
diagrams ?


Include/Exclude are not operators. They are procedure calls.


Section 12.8.5 says "Elements can be added or removed from the set with the
Include or Exclude operators" and table 12.6 lists them as "Set operators". 
So, that is confusing (to me).






22. Various rules refer to a rule  for which I can't 
find the rule. What is it ?


identifier.


Can't a variable also be qualified ? Therefore ?

variable-reference = qualified-identifier .


Yes.



41. Is it correct that  is referenced only in the 
record  rule ? I would expect something like an 
 in various declaration rules.


To the best of my knowledge, only records support operator definitions.

The 'operator' chapter handles 'global' operators which are at the level of
global functions/procedures.


Your reply puzzles me.


Your question puzzled me.



But to parse that, the rules for  and  need 
something like an , don't they ?


Yes, I had come to this conclusion myself, and I added it.

The following zip file contains the updated documentation:
http://downloads.freepascal.org/fpc/beta/3.2.4-rc1/docs/doc-pdf.zip

Besides correcting your remarks, I did a general overhaul:
- I changed the use of space character in syntactic elements to dash (-)
- Improved some diagrams.
- synchronized some syntactical elements.
- Tried to make sure every syntactical element has a definition.

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



Another use of UNIV is type-compatibility of procedural parameters. For 
example with


 function BinaryFind
( theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr;
  theFirstIndex   : Int32;
  theLastIndex   : Int32;
 function SmallerThan
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
 function EqualTo
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
  var theFoundIndex   : Int32): boolean;


But this kind of procedural parameter doesn't seem to be included in the rule 
for . it is allowed in macpas and iso modes.


I added univ and documented it.

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



More questions about the FreePascal Language Reference (version 3.2.0) 
part 3


26. Am I correct to assume the following equivalents for rules that I 
couldn't find a definiton for:


formal-parameter-list  = parameter-declaration .
parameter-list = parameter-declaration .


Having a better look, the  rule defines just one 
parameter. So, we get instead


	formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" 
parameter-declaration } ] [ "..." ] ")" .

parameter-list = formal-parameter-list .

comprising also the "ellipsis" parameter, which, according to Appendix D.6 of 
the Programmer's Manual is functionally equal to the varargs

keyword.


Added to the diagrams.

I changed the diagram to be more clear (hopefully).

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:

28.  The documentation for macpas "UNIV" is missing ?


I have no idea what this is ?


UNIV is macpas specific (as mentioned in Appendix D.6 of the Programmer's 
Manual)


Thank you, added to the docs.

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

32. Are the set operators "include", "exclude" missing in the syntax 
diagrams ? Is "><" missing (specifically) as set operator in the 
syntax diagrams ?


Include/Exclude are not operators. They are procedure calls.


Section 12.8.5 says "Elements can be added or removed from the set with the
Include or Exclude operators" and table 12.6 lists them as "Set operators". So, that is confusing 
(to me).






22. Various rules refer to a rule  for which I can't find 
the rule. What is it ?


identifier.


Can't a variable also be qualified ? Therefore ?

variable-reference = qualified-identifier .


41. Is it correct that  is referenced only in the record 
 rule ? I would expect something like an  
in various declaration rules.


To the best of my knowledge, only records support operator definitions.

The 'operator' chapter handles 'global' operators which are at the level of
global functions/procedures.


Your reply puzzles me. I mean code like this

{$mode fpc}
unit Operators;

interface

  const
ki : complex = ( re: 0.0; im: 1.0);

  operator + ( z1: complex; z2: complex) sum: complex;
  operator + ( d1: double;  z2: complex) sum: complex;
  operator + ( z1: complex; d2: double ) sum: complex;

etcetera

But to parse that, the rules for  and  need something like an 
, don't they ?


Regards,

Adriaan van Os

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Another use of UNIV is type-compatibility of procedural parameters. For example 
with

 function BinaryFind
( theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr;
  theFirstIndex   : Int32;
  theLastIndex   : Int32;
 function SmallerThan
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
 function EqualTo
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
  var theFoundIndex   : Int32): boolean;


But this kind of procedural parameter doesn't seem to be included in the rule for 
. it is allowed in macpas and iso modes.


ISO-7185 Pascal has

formal-parameter-list = "(" formal-parameter-section { ";" 
formal-parameter-section } ")" .
	formal-parameter-section = value-parameter-specification | variable-parameter-specification | 
procedural-parameter-specification | functional-parameter-specification | 
conformant-array-parameter-specification .

functional-parameter-specification = function-heading .
procedural-parameter-specification = procedure-heading .

Regards,

Adriaan van Os

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



More questions about the FreePascal Language Reference (version 3.2.0)  part 
3


26. Am I correct to assume the following equivalents for rules that I 
couldn't find a definiton for:


formal-parameter-list  = parameter-declaration .
parameter-list = parameter-declaration .


Having a better look, the  rule defines just one 
parameter. So, we get instead

formal-parameter-list = "(" [ parameter-declaration { ";" parameter-declaration } ] [ 
"..." ] ")" .
parameter-list = formal-parameter-list .

comprising also the "ellipsis" parameter, which, according to Appendix D.6 of the Programmer's 
Manual is functionally equal to the varargs

keyword.

Regards,

Adriaan van Os
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote:

28.  The documentation for macpas "UNIV" is missing ?


I have no idea what this is ?


UNIV is macpas specific (as mentioned in Appendix D.6 of the Programmer's 
Manual)

With UNIV,

... ":" [ "ARRAY" "OF" ] type-identifier ...

 in the syntax diagrams, becomes

... ":" [ "ARRAY" "OF" | UNIV ] type-identifier ...

The modifier UNIV indicates that the actual parameter can be of any type that has the same 
byte-size as the formal parameter.


Example:

procedure HDispose( var theHandle: univ Handle); .

which saves a value-type-cast when calling HDispose with handles that are not (precisely) of type 
Handle.


Another use of UNIV is type-compatibility of procedural parameters. For example 
with

 function BinaryFind
( theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr;
  theFirstIndex   : Int32;
  theLastIndex   : Int32;
 function SmallerThan
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
 function EqualTo
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr): boolean;
  var theFoundIndex   : Int32): boolean;

we can call BinaryFind as follows

  theFoundFlag := BinaryFind
( @theCmdID, 1, kCmdCount, CmdIDSmallerThan, CmdIDEqualTo,

where

 function CmdIDSmallerThan
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : CmdIDPtr): boolean; .

and

function CmdIDEqualTo
( theIndex: Int32;
  theValuePtr : CmdIDPtr): boolean; ...

because CmdIDPtr is through UNIV type-compatible with

theValuePtr : univ UnivPtr

Regards,

Adriaan van Os

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Wayne Sherman wrote:


On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:35 AM Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

Hm. Lot of corrections to do.. I'll be busy tonight :-)


Are these grammars in GIT so others can help by submitting merge
requests?  That way you can spread the love :-)



Everything concerning FPC is in git :-)

https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/documentation/-/tree/main/syntax?ref_type=heads

Michael.___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Wayne Sherman via fpc-pascal]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:35 AM Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Hm. Lot of corrections to do.. I'll be busy tonight :-)

Are these grammars in GIT so others can help by submitting merge
requests?  That way you can spread the love :-)
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal wrote:



More questions about the FreePascal Language Reference (version 3.2.0)  part 
3


26. Am I correct to assume the following equivalents for rules that I 
couldn't find a definiton for:


formal-parameter-list  = parameter-declaration .
parameter-list = parameter-declaration .
hint-directives= { hint-directive } .
hint-modifiers = call-modifiers .
hintdirective  = hint-directive .
hintdirectives = hint-directives .
integer   := [ sign ] unsigned-integer .
integer-constant  := integer .
integerconstant   := integer-constant .
typed-declaration  = type-declaration .


Yes, although integer-constant, integerconstant and integer should simply all be
the same. I will correct that.



27. Section 13.2 defines a rule for  refering to a rule 



	structured-statement = compound-statement | conditional-statement | 
repetitive-statement | with-statement | exception-statement .


Am I correct to assume ?

exception-statement = try-except-statement | try-finally-statement .


Yes.



where

	try-except-statement = "try" statement-list "except" 
exceptionhandlers "END" .
	try-finally-statement = "try" statement-list "finally" 
finally-statements "END" .


Yes.



28.  The documentation for macpas "UNIV" is missing ?


I have no idea what this is ?



29. Am I correct to assume ?

ordinal-type = ordinal-type-identifier .
ordinal-type-identifier = identifier .


Yes.



30. Am I correct to assume that  was meant to be 
 ?


Yes.



31. Are the operators "<<" and ">>" missing  in the syntax diagrams ?


Yes and no.

I preferred not to document these since they are in fact C operators which I 
think
are a historical mistake.



32. Are the set operators "include", "exclude" missing in the syntax diagrams 
? Is "><" missing (specifically) as set operator in the syntax diagrams ?


Include/Exclude are not operators. They are procedure calls.

To illustrate, the following fails to compile:
---
type
  TEnum = (one,two,three);
  TEnums = set of TEnum;

var a : TEnums;

begin
  a:=[];
  a:=Include(a,one);
end.
---
iu.pp(9,6) Error: Incompatible types: got "untyped" expected "TEnums"
iu.pp(10,4) Fatal: There were 1 errors compiling module, stopping

The missing >< is an oversight



33. Section 12.1 gives "sign" in boldface in the rule for , 
suggesting that it is a keyword. Is that correct ?


No.

It is not a keyword, but one of '+' or '-'.

Hm. Lot of corrections to do.. I'll be busy tonight :-)

Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] More syntax questions (part 3)

[Adriaan van Os via fpc-pascal]

More questions about the FreePascal Language Reference (version 3.2.0)  part 3

26. Am I correct to assume the following equivalents for rules that I couldn't 
find a definiton for:

formal-parameter-list  = parameter-declaration .
parameter-list = parameter-declaration .
hint-directives= { hint-directive } .
hint-modifiers = call-modifiers .
hintdirective  = hint-directive .
hintdirectives = hint-directives .
integer   := [ sign ] unsigned-integer .
integer-constant  := integer .
integerconstant   := integer-constant .
typed-declaration  = type-declaration .

27. Section 13.2 defines a rule for  refering to a rule 


	structured-statement = compound-statement | conditional-statement | repetitive-statement | 
with-statement | exception-statement .


Am I correct to assume ?

exception-statement = try-except-statement | try-finally-statement .

where

try-except-statement = "try" statement-list "except" exceptionhandlers 
"END" .
try-finally-statement = "try" statement-list "finally" finally-statements 
"END" .

28.  The documentation for macpas "UNIV" is missing ?

29. Am I correct to assume ?

ordinal-type = ordinal-type-identifier .
ordinal-type-identifier = identifier .

30. Am I correct to assume that  was meant to be 
 ?

31. Are the operators "<<" and ">>" missing  in the syntax diagrams ?

32. Are the set operators "include", "exclude" missing in the syntax diagrams ? Is "><" missing 
(specifically) as set operator in the syntax diagrams ?


33. Section 12.1 gives "sign" in boldface in the rule for , suggesting that it is a 
keyword. Is that correct ?


(to be continued)
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal