Corrected EBNF grammar in the manual

[pczarn]

The grammar for use declarations was outdated. Corrected some other mistakes.

[chris-morgan]

Um… what? These changes would make use; valid, which it is certainly not. A use statement must be followed by an identifier.

The grammar already existing appears to me to be correct.

[chris-morgan]

I take back what I said about the grammar existing being correct—I’ve been reading other grammar rules too much recently (the IETF RFC ones in particular) and was thinking […] meant optional. There is a problem with the current grammar, but the new one is wrong also. I think that just tacking a question mark after the ] on the existing grammar would be correct? OK, OK, that responsibility got shifted to the path_glob rule… not doing well today, am I?

[pczarn]

My line of thought is that a single identifier is also a path. path_glob can match multiple paths.

// Valid declarations
use ident = simple::path;
use simple::path;
use {many, idents}; // doesn't start with an ident!
// Invalid
use simple::path = another::path;
use *;
use;

[alexcrichton]

I think @chris-morgan is right about the meta_item grammar. Let's leave it as a literal for now instead of a string_lit, otherwise these look great to me, thanks!

[pczarn]

Alright, it's done.