[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfac
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Mar 2023 15:00:25 +0000 |
> > TBH, I don't see how this could be named well to fit all languages.
> > I like "declaration" word more, if we need a name.
>
> I think that "declaration" will be clear, even for users of the language
> where the precise term is "interface".
>
> If I understand right, an "interface" would describe an entire package's
> calling conventions. Is that correct? If so, then since we are talking
> about the calling specs for one specific function, "declaration"
> would fit that better than "interface".
Caveat: I haven't been following this. And I have no problem with
"declaration" for what I think you're describing. But just to mention this:
A function's "calling specs", meaning a spec of its arguments and its return
value, are often called its "signature". This is the case for both programming
in general and theory.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: [External] : Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces,
Drew Adams <=