problem with declaration grammar?

[jerry quinn]

Christopher Wright Wrote:

> jerry quinn wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but I'm having trouble seeing that a simple declaration will parse correctly with the D grammar.
> > 
> > If we take a declaration statment like:
> > 
> > int x = 3;
> > 
> > we have (my best guess):
> > 
> > DeclarationStatement -> Declaration
> > Declaration -> Decl
> > Decl -> BasicType Declarators ;
> > BasicType -> int
> > Declarators -> DeclaratorInitializer
> > DeclaratorInitializer -> Declarator = Initializer
> > Declarator -> BasicType2 Identifier
> > BasicType2 -> ????
> > 
> > I'm thinking that BasicType2 is optional here, rather than required as the grammar shows.  Is that correct?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Jerry
> 
> . Declaration -> Decl
> . Decl -> BasicType Declarators
> . BasicType -> "int"
> . Declarators -> DeclaratorInitializer
> . DeclaratorInitializer -> Declarator "=" Initializer
> We agree up to here.
> 
> . Declarator -> Identifier
> Here, you don't need BasicType2, and if you use it, you recurse, so 
> using the rule Declarator -> BasicType2 Declarator here is useless.

What you describe sounds like what I'd expect.

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