Lack of precedence in OR clause causes lexical ambiguity for comments

/**/* */*/, in its entirety, is a valid BLOCK_COMMENT_OR_DOC if and only if the outer comment is interpreted as an OUTER_BLOCK_DOC AFAICT. The beginning of the stream also matches as a BLOCK_COMMENT however, which will match only /**/, leaving the rest as remaining tokens (which appears to be the compiler's current behavior).

The notation gives precedence to sequences over the OR operator but does not define precedence when multiple branches are candidates.

I believe the latter may be too notable of a change over updating the comment syntax here, but I'm also unsure the likelihood this was an assumption never actually written which should be included. I also know the comment syntax is also incredibly verbose. I'm happy to leave that question to those with experience.

Also, apologies if I did make a mistake or miss something. I'd be happy to hear why this is invalid :)

Start with the linked BLOCK_COMMENT_OR_DOC, OUTER_BLOCK_DOC, and BLOCK_COMMENT grammar, then review the linked notation rules for how competing alternatives are resolved. Reproduce the compiler behavior for /**/* */ and compare it with the documented grammar. Done means reaching and documenting a clear resolution for the precedence ambiguity.