[Types-sig] "Interfaces" Jargon

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "JF" == Jim Fulton <jim.fulton@digicool.com> writes:

    JF> I'd like to get moving on resolving jargon issues wrt to what
    JF> I like to call "interfaces".

    JF> If anyone *really* has a hard time using "interfaces" and
    JF> "implements" or if you think a complelling case can be made
    JF> against these or for others, then please speak up now.

I personally don't like the term "interface" to describe these
JimFultonThingies :-).  I suppose my main arguments are that the class
definition, which brings together all the specifications about how a
concrete object behaves, via it's base classes and its conforms_to
heirarchy, is also an interface.  I also think the term "interface" is
way too overloaded and that using that term means that people (like
myself) bring whatever background baggage they have to that term.

I prefer "protocol" and "conforms_to" but mostly from my ObjC
background.  "behavior" works for me, as does "discipline" although I
think we've typically use the latter for the informal description of
method signatures.

But in reality the JavaJuggernaut has probably steamrolled this issue
into decision already.  I suspect since JimF will be the first one to
the table with Working Code (tm), so his are the preferences that will
eventually get adopted.  So let's just decide and move on.

-Barry