Alan Manuel Gloria:
> It *might*.  I suggest we need better names.  We don't really need to
> prefix with "it_expr", for example.  So maybe "normal_it_expr" and
> "special_it_expr" instead.

Good names are always a good idea!
I've switched to those names; if anyone has an even better
idea, please speak up.

> Having more rules helps in discussing rules,

Sure!

> and may help suggest how
> to organize a top-down recursive descent parser.

The current structure is specially rigged to be especially easy
to implement as a recursive descent parser.  But if it's too hard to follow,
it's not a good idea; *people* need to understand it too :-).

> However, we might want to ask Mark H. Weaver directly if this helps
> clarify the BNF.

Agreed.

Mark H. Weaver - would splitting it up into more-but-smaller rules help?

--- David A. Wheeler