C++ parser: Should we get rid of cp_parser_declarator_id?

[Volker Reichelt]

On  7 Dec, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 
>> If we make it "static inline", would not we gain the same efficiency
>> and preserve the comments and all that?  In general, the methodoly
>> seems to have a function for each non-terminal -- following a long
>> tradition of recursive descent parser -- and maintaining that
>> principle is helpful for code clarity.

Ok. I thought less indirection would make the code more readable,
but you've got a point here.

> There's no need to make it inline.  The optimizers are now smart enough to 
> inline a static function into its only caller.

That's what I thought.
I'll leave the code as is, then.

Regards,
Volker