Is the declaration grammar definition of 'Parameter' correct?

[Bernard Helyer]

On 08/06/10 17:19, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/07/2010 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> On 08/06/10 16:00, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's wrong. (close reads of parse.c are much more useful than
>>> reading the spec. heh.) A peek in my grammar and...
>>>
>>> Parameter:
>>> ...
>>> BasicType Declarator
>>> BasicType Declarator = AssignExpression
>>> BasicType Declarator ...
>>> Type
>>> Type ...
>>>
>>> I probably should have filed bug reports back when I was going through
>>> the grammar. Oh well.
>>
>> Hmm. On the same page, Declarator has an identifier in it. Which means I
>> still couldn't parse
>>
>> int function(int, int)
>>
>> with it, no?
>
> Eh?
>
> Parameter |= Type |= BasicType Declarator2 |= int Declarator2 |= int
>
> wait, are you talking about the params inside the function type, or the
> whole thing as a param? I'm pretty sure it works either way.

Parameter doesn't resolve to Type, not that I can see...