Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

pat hayes wrote:
>
> I do not feel that special annotation properties are either necessary
> or desirable. The only case for them seems to be Peter's being
> worried that allowing annotations to be regular assertions might in
> some unspecified way cause problems of some unspecified nature. I do
> not believe that there are any such problems.
>

I basically agree, though I'd phrase it differently:

My gut instinct tells me that mucking around with such semantic changes at
this stage in the game ought not be done without careful consideration and
only for a really really good reason -- i.e. to fix a showstopper problem.

For a dummy: why would "annotation properties" be fundamentally different
than any other properties whose object is an untyped literal string?

Jonathan