From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FF557EF10 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:22 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of alain.frisch@lexifi.com) identity=pra; client-ip=85.233.204.164; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain.frisch@lexifi.com"; x-sender="alain.frisch@lexifi.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of alain.frisch@lexifi.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=85.233.204.164; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain.frisch@lexifi.com"; x-sender="alain.frisch@lexifi.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mx20.yaziba.net) identity=helo; client-ip=85.233.204.164; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="alain.frisch@lexifi.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mx20.yaziba.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CBAAAngv1UnKTM6VVAGoNYWgGCQ0a/T4caTQEBAQEBARABAQEBAQgLCQkULoQiFxVAGhwCBRYLAgsDAgECAUsNCAEBiC8JN4pxjSSPSptJgSGRU4FFBZNzhW+BU4UijH0CgWgLAQEBAYIbbgGCQgEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CBAAAngv1UnKTM6VVAGoNYWgGCQ0a/T4caTQEBAQEBARABAQEBAQgLCQkULoQiFxVAGhwCBRYLAgsDAgECAUsNCAEBiC8JN4pxjSSPSptJgSGRU4FFBZNzhW+BU4UijH0CgWgLAQEBAYIbbgGCQgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,367,1422918000"; d="scan'208";a="102597677" Received: from mx20.yaziba.net ([85.233.204.164]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Mar 2015 12:27:21 +0100 Received: from mta10.int.yaziba.net (unknown [10.4.20.30]) by mx20.yaziba.net (mx10.yaziba.net) with ESMTP id 038071A7463 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta10.int.yaziba.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF43CA657 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:20 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta10.int.yaziba.net Received: from mta10.int.yaziba.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta10.int.yaziba.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTCHkVj_sNvr for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta10.int.yaziba.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AFBCA65B for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:20 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta10.int.yaziba.net Received: from mta10.int.yaziba.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta10.int.yaziba.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 16AN4Pw_aA9F for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.48.192] (unknown [185.23.92.144]) by mta10.int.yaziba.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD471CA65A for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:27:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54FD8397.2060002@lexifi.com> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:27:19 +0100 From: Alain Frisch Organization: LexiFi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-DRWEB-SCAN: ok X-VRSPAM-SCORE: 0 X-VRSPAM-STATE: legit X-VRSPAM-CAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeejledrheekgdeftdcutefuodetggdotefrucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefkfffhohgfggfvufgtgfesthhqrgdttdefjeenucfhrhhomheptehlrghinhcuhfhrihhstghhuceorghlrghinhdrfhhrihhstghhsehlvgigihhfihdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehinhhrihgrrdhfrhdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm X-VRSPAM-EXTCAUSE: mhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht Subject: [Caml-list] Changing precedence and placement of attributes Dear caml-list, 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: - Their precedence on type expressions, so that "int * int [@foo]" is=20 parsed as "(int * int) [@foo]" instead of "int * (int [@foo])". - 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". References: - http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=3D6612 - https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/152 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. 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)? Alain