Is the declaration grammar definition of 'Parameter' correct?

[Ellery Newcomer]

On 06/08/2010 12:30 AM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> 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...

According to whom?