In the past we have convinced ourselves that we didn't need to differentiate between applying annotations to individual overloads. We now have scenarios for annotating different overloads differently that requires external annotations.

What about unbound actions and functions?

Could alternatively define overloads based on unordered set of parameter names (including binding parameter) but that would differ more from the JSON representation.

Resolved as amended 2018-5-17

Michael Pizzo: Thinking about having to process these external annotations it would be better to append the ordered list of parameter types instead of the binding parameter type and the unordered list of non-binding parameter names.

Luckily the ordered list of all parameter types also has to be unique, and using it would allow to construct the one and only target for a given overload when looking for external annotations targeting that overload.

Proposal revised in 2018-9-20 TC Meeting to use ordered list of parameter types rather than unordered list of parameter names. This makes it easier to look up at the expense of differing from the json format for advertising functions.

This also affects evaluation of path expressions: mention targeting of parameters and return types.

Closed as applied 2019-6-6.