Ugh, why are there so many collections of qualities of that don't seem to have an overarching name? Makes talking about stuff really annoying. Currently thinking about:
? ::= abstract | concrete
? ::= definition | parameter
? ::= explicit | implicit
Conversation
Just thought of some things with names:
stage ::= runtime | compiletime
phase ::= static | dynamic
accessibility ::= public | private | protected
eval-strategy ::= strict | lazy
'stage' and 'phase' might be synonyms though…? 'eval-strategy' is a bit long…
4
1
eagerness, perhaps?
1
1
ah, but that runs into the same issue as "dynamism", etc etc, where it only describes one property, and "lazy" doesn't feel like a degree of eagerness
1
1
Replying to
Yeah, it seems like English likes to do that 😢 - you get similar issues with terms like ‘strictness’, ‘translucency’, ‘opacity’, etc… haha
Like, in order to get the name of a quality/property it gets one of the options and chucks ‘-ness’, or ’-ity’, etc. on the end… but some things have their own overarching name for some reason. 🤔
1
Perhaps we could figure out how the ‘special names’ (don't know what to call those) are created, and then do that process manually to synthesize our own special names as needed! muahahaha.