Closed cdmgtri closed 3 years ago
I think it's OK that representation terms have the little bit of fuzziness.
What would be a good definition for "Type" in the representation terms table?
One factor here is that, although not required, the representation terms appear in many type names.
I think we're OK where we are. Declining.
Add an additional representation terms table for types.
Table 10-2: Representation terms
The occasional references to this table and "component name" or just "name" seem a little fuzzy since this table is exclusively property representation terms.
Second and third sentences of paragraph preceding Table 10-2:
Also, it is mentioned close above at the beginning of Section 10.8.7. Representation terms that types have the representation term "Type", but "Type" does not show up in the table named "Representation terms".