spec clarification: type annotations on static nested types

[Alex Buckley]

On 12/10/2018 6:14 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:57 PM Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at oracle.com
> <mailto:alex.buckley at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     To avoid confusion, the rule should be: "If the value of path_length is
>     0, and the type being annotated is a nested type, then the annotation
>     applies to the outermost [DELETE]enclosing[/DELETE] part of the type
>     for which a type annotation is admissible."
...
>
> Does "outermost part of a type" refer to the idea of enclosing/nested
> types in general, or just in this specific context since we're only
> talking about nested types? Put another way, is it meaningful to talk
> about the 'outermost part' of arbitrary types?

Words based on "inner" and "outer" connect most strongly with nested 
types, where the containment relation is clear from the declaration 
site. Still, I can imagine that "outermost part" could be ascribed 
meaning for a array type or a parameterized type, where the containment 
exists but is driven by the use site. For example, given a use of the 
type T[][], the outermost type is T[][] and the innermost type is T; 
given a use of the type A<B<C>>, the outermost type is A<..> and the 
innermost type is C. This would specify the meaning of a non-zero 
path_length more firmly than "... each entry in the path array 
represents an iterative, left-to-right step towards the precise location 
of the annotation in an array type, nested type, or parameterized type". 
Is that the direction you were heading in?

Alex