problem with declaration grammar?

[jerry quinn]

Ellery Newcomer Wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something.  The grammar shown in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/declaration.html has the following rules:
> > 
> > BasicType2:
> >         *
> >         [ ]
> >         [ Expression ]
> >         [ Expression .. Expression ]
> >         [ Type ]
> >         delegate Parameters FunctionAttributesopt
> >         function Parameters FunctionAttributesopt
> > 
> > Declarator:
> >         BasicType2 Declarator DeclaratorSuffixesopt
> >         BasicType2 Identifier DeclaratorSuffixesopt
> > 
> > With this definition, I don't see how you can get Declarator->Identifier.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> 
> You are correct. BasicType2 can match nothing. It should also be able to 
> match what it does above multiple times.

As I'm looking at this further, there seems to be more issues.  In particular, I don't think the grammar can parse:

int (*x)(char);

as specified.  Doing so gives (my best attempt)

Decl -> BasicType Declarators ;
BasicType -> int
Declarators -> DeclaratorInitializer
DeclaratorInitializer -> Declarator
Declarator -> BasicType2 Identifier DeclaratorSuffixes
BasicType2 -> NULL (assuming that the grammar should be revised like this)
Identifier -> BAD PARSE