a "derived-declarator-type-list" isn't

[diamond@tkovoa]

In article <1990Oct8.000812.24800 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In several of the subsections of 3.5.4, the result of a particular form
>of declarator is defined in terms of the result of a simpler form, which
>is said to supply a type "derived-declarator-type-list T".
>There is just one problem with this.  Nothing ever defines what a d-d-t-l
>is.  Despite the name, it is not a list of derived declarator types,
>and indeed it is not a list of types at all.

Perhaps it is just a typo (perhaps a forgotten edit) for, simply,
"derived declarator type" which is defined in 3.1.2.5?

And if it isn't, then would someone please be kind enough to post the
correct definition?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC    diamond at tkov50.enet.dec.com
                                    (tkou02 is scheduled for demolition)
We steer like a sports car:  I use opinions; the company uses the rack.