Michael Van Canneyt 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 2
17. For the following rules, I couldn't find a definition in the
Language Reference. Can I assume they can all be defined as
<identifier> ?
object-type-identifier = identifier .
field-identifier = identifier .
interface-identifier = identifier .
interface-type-identifier = identifier .
method-identifier = identifier .
procedure-identifier = identifier .
protocol-identifier = identifier .
protocol-type-identifier = identifier .
qualified-method-identifier = identifier .
result-identifier = identifier .
type-identifier = identifier .
function-identifier = identifier .
unit-identifier = identifier .
variable-identifier = identifier .
Yes.
The idea was to use these "dedicated names" to convey that the
identifier must be of a certain type.
You cannot express this concept in a formal syntax, but for a formal
syntax the above is correct.
Of course, a rule like
proc-identifier = procedure-identifier | function-identifier .
makes no sense without the semantics of a symbol table (to decide between the
two), but rules like
procedure-heading = "PROCEDURE" procedure-identifier ....
function-heading = "FUNCTION" function-identifier ....
procedure-identifier = identifier .
function-identifier = identifier .
do make sense, even without semantics, because in the parsing(-only) tree, a procedure-identifier
(etc.) node is now marked as such, and not just as identifier. In certain applications of a
parsing(-only) tree this is quite useful.
Regards,
Adriaan van Os
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
