Re: [heycam/webidl] Allow ReturnTypes to have extended attributes associated with them (#342)

The more I think about this, the more I worry this syntax for type annotations is going to lead to a lot of confusion for spec authors and implementors.  The distinction between needing to write:

void functionName([A] optional [B] long argument);

vs.

void functionName([A, B] long argument);

just because the optional is there, and understanding that B will apply to the type, while A applies to the argument itself, is all a bit hard (this is also true for dictionary members, where 'required' can split things, and now, for return types, where 'static' would presumably split things, I may have left another one out).  

In the interest of covering the bases, where other syntaxes for type extended attributes considered? I can think of some mediocre ideas, that I admittedly have not fully considered in the face of the current grammar. Like, moving type extended attributes after the type.  

 void functionName([A] long [B] argument);

Or using a different delineator, perhaps repurposing the existing '<' & '>' if it is thought these would never be needed, or willing to have funky syntax for sequences / promises / records.

 void functionName([A] long<B\> argument);

Or maybe braces?

 void functionName([A] long{B} argument);

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/342#issuecomment-294003466