From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Maxence.Guesdon@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0F347EF95
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Mon,  9 Mar 2015 14:16:27 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,367,1422918000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="125035074"
Received: from vl21-pfc1.u-bourgogne.fr (HELO alcazar2) ([193.52.245.13])
  by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 09 Mar 2015 14:16:25 +0100
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:16:25 +0100
From: Maxence Guesdon <Maxence.Guesdon@inria.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Cc: Alain Frisch <alain.frisch@lexifi.com>
Message-ID: <20150309141625.0da29f2b@alcazar2>
In-Reply-To: <54FD8397.2060002@lexifi.com>
References: <54FD8397.2060002@lexifi.com>
Organization: INRIA
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Changing precedence and placement of attributes

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:27:19 +0100
Alain Frisch <alain.frisch@lexifi.com> wrote:

> Dear caml-list,

Hello,
>=20
> Following a feature request by whitequark and a pull request by J=C3=A9r=
=C3=A9mie=20
> Dimino, we're considering two related changes to attributes:
>=20
>   - Their precedence on type expressions, so that "int * int [@foo]" is=20
> parsed as "(int * int) [@foo]" instead of "int * (int [@foo])".
>=20
>   - Their placement on constructor/field declaration, so that one would=20
> write "A of int [@foo]" or "a : int [@foo]" instead of "A [@foo] of int"=
=20
> or "a [@foo] : int".
>=20
> References:
>=20
>   - http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3D6612
>   - https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/152
>=20
> There seems to be a strong support in favor of the change (at least,=20
> nobody objected to it on principle).  But it can clearly break or change=
=20
> the interpretation of existing code.  I'm still in favor of doing the=20
> change as soon as possible.
>=20
> So my question is:  would anyone be negatively impacted (or just=20
> shocked) if the change was done as part of the next bug fix release=20
> (4.02.2)?

I'm quite "shocked" as it becomes inconsistent with other precedences
in type definitions. By now
  int * int list
is parsed as
  int * (int list)
and not as
  (int * int) list

I would expect attributes to be associated the same way.

How would be parsed the following:
  int * int [@foo] * int
?

- m