Should statement-level annotation within nested component be parsed (or left as inline commenting)?

[chrfrantz]

In the following expression, the annotation [embeddedAnnotation] in the nested component (a condition in this example), could variably be treated as an annotation to be drawn on component-level (concatenated with [componentAnnotation]).

Cac[componentAnnotation]{ A(actor) I(act) [embeddedAnnotation] Bdir(object) }

If combined, the compound annotation would be [componentAnnotation][embeddedAnnotation]; if ignored (and left as optional comment for the encoder), the compound annotation would merely be [componentAnnotation].

This should be discussed, trading off flexibility in annotation allocation (e.g., to better capture coding intuition) with other use cases, such as internal commentary.

Associated with this, a new convention for inline commentary should be considered, since the use of square brackets is conflicting with syntax elements.

[chrfrantz]

Discussion suggests the potentially promoted ambiguity of the coding caused by tolerating the inline annotation, alongside the conflict with existing convention to annotate implied expressions (typically used to substitute pronouns or implied actors, or reconstruct sentennial structures). As such, the annotation embedded in the component should not be treated as an annotation and ignored in the output generation.