[erlang-questions] Typed records and erl_parse

[Tobias Lindahl]

Short version:

Who would suffer if we changed the format of the record attribute given 
by erl_parse?

Slightly longer version:

We are experimenting with adding type annotations in record declarations 
in order to make use of them in the Dialyzer. Since we don't want to 
keep this in a separate declaration we have changed our version of the 
erl_parse to have a different representation of the record attribute.

In principle, the format of the record attribute can be made backwards 
compatible, but we forsee some future problems in keeping different 
formats of the current records and their typed counterparts, so we would 
really like to make them the same attribute whether they have type 
information or not.

Of course, we also have to change some parts of the compiler in order to 
make this work, but before we go about and do these changes we would 
like to know if there are people out there (outside of the compiler) who 
rely on the format of what the erl_parse gives you for records.

So, again. Who would suffer if we changed the format of the record 
attribute given by erl_parse?

Tobias