base class access specifier[s]

[BCS]

Reply to Ellery,

> I don't buy that either. The subject was access specifiers for base
> classes, not storage classes for declarations or access specifiers for
> statements. In those cases I would grant your point, but a base class
> has precisely one access specifier and no storage classes. It would
> not be complex to define such a grammar and in fact the D grammar does
> precisely this.
> 

another reason: to avoid this requiters more look ahead