[type-annos-observers] ordering of annotated array brackets

[Alex Buckley]

On 3/4/2014 9:29 AM, Michael Ernst wrote:
> There was some text in the old specification about this issue.  It was
> commented out in September 2011 for brevity, but not because of
> controversy.
>
> In this (deprecated but legal) syntax, in each component you read
> left-to-right, like this:
>
>      @English String @NonNull [] [] []  arr1,   arr2 @Length(10) [] [] [];
>      3-------------> 2--------------->               1------------------>
>
> As another example, consider
>
>      @A T @B [] arr1, arr2 @C [];
>
> arr1 should have the same annotations as the elements of arr2.  So,
>
>      @A T @B [] arr2 @C [];
>
> should be equivalent to
>
>      @A T @C [] @B [] arr2;

I don't understand this at all. Allow me to refer to section 2.2.1 of 
java-annotation-design.pdf:

--
An important property of this syntax is that, in two declarations that 
differ only in the number of array levels, the annotations mean the same 
thing. For example, var1 has the same annotations as the elements of arr2:
   @NonNull String var1;
   @NonNull String[] arr2;
because in each case @NonNull refers to the String, not the array. This 
consistency is especially important since the two variables may appear 
in a single declaration:
   @NonNull String var1, arr2[];
--

So in a field declaration with two declarators, arr1 and arr2:

   @A T @B [] arr1,    arr2 @C [];

the extra dimension in the second declarator should not affect the type 
or annotations of the first declarator. Yet you seem to be saying that 
arr2's extra dimension affects the type of arr1?!

Alex