From: Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:38:46 +0200
Bob Rogers wrote:
> It is a good idea. I think I would call it ":class", though.
I did ponder that, and then worried that people would confuse it with
putting a method into a certain class, which isn't what this is for...
Jonathan
Good point. And ":sub_class" or ":sub_type" would probably be even more
confusing. And ":invokable_class" is probably too verbose (and probably
also too general). ":use_class"?
From: "Will Coleda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:20:32 -0400
It could be a pmc instead of a class. How about :type ?
Perhaps we want to save that for declaring return types? But,
considering Jonathan's point, ":type" is probably better for this after
all.
-- Bob
