On May 7, 2020, at 3:07 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > No, i disagree about to things > - trying to tilt each features to be either an interface or an class is not > appropriate
I buy Dan’s argument that since the JLS uses this bifurcation, it is legitimate to extract more benefit from it in this way. After all, every type-declaring construct is covered under one or the other heading (chapter 8 or chapter 9) in the JLS. > - use classes or interfaces as a kind of composed word with the same meaning > as "declared type”. As I just said in my previous note, this composed word isn’t perfect but it is a great improvement over “type”, and I don’t want a hypothetical best (as yet undiscovered) to be the enemy of an actual better. If we can agree on this composed word, it will be progress. And I think it will sharpen any future discussion of a better umbrella word. We are sure to have such a discussion if/when we introduce templates and/or specializations, which are like more-concrete, less-erased, less-parametric versions of generics and their types. — John