On May 8, 2020, at 12:59 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: > > > I'm not against replacing "type" as a generic term for all the construct. > You're using "type-declaring construct", and i think it's a better term that > "class and/or interface" because it convey the fact that this is an union of > the different constructs. > class and interface is ambiguous because it makes the terms "class" and > "interface" both a construct and a subset of the constructs. > > Usually, it's better to avoid compound words in technical writing, so there > is maybe a better term like type-construct or typeconstruct like you have > cellphone and not cell phone.
Good suggestion. That brings the candidate bikeshed colors to at least three by my count: - “type-construct” = a class or interface (or any of their sub-kinds) - “class-like [construct]” = ditto (drop [construct] in “class-like declaration” etc.) - “class” = a *proper* class or interface (or any of their sub-kinds) There must be at least three more colors out there. I do *not* want Dan to wait for that particular shed-painting exercise to terminate before cleaning up everything else, by means of careful use of the three-word phrase “class or interface”. — John
