This is the first revision in a series that adds support for declaratively specifying the asm format of an operation. This revision
focuses solely on parsing the format. Future revisions will add support for generating the proper parser/printer, as well as
transitioning the syntax definition of many existing operations.
This was originally proposed here:
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-declarative-op-assembly-format/340
format itself is a bit too broad and can be confusing. What about naming it as something like asmForm or assemblyForm? This applies to other places; I see you generally use "declarative op format". I think calling it "declarative op assembly form" is more natural and descriptive. WDYT?