This question arose because we can talk about `List`'s type parameter being "instantiated" (that is, decided during typechecking) to `Int` or `String`, but saying `List[Int]` is an instance of a type is problematic because it implies the creation of a new heap object.
-
-
Show this thread
-
So while "List[Int] is an instance of a List" is correct in a certain context, I don't want to confuse my readers by assuming they have precisely that context and not a slightly different one. Any ideas?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Applications?
-
This might be the most correct answer. But I'm trying to work out why it doesn't quite feel as appropriate as "variants", but I'll plug it into my text and see if I can come up with a good reason that illustrates why...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
`List[Int]` and `List[String]` are elements of `List`?
-
I'd go a hard "no" on that, just because "element" is so widely used to refer to the arbitrary number of items in a collection...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Variants or specifications. Not applications. This word is too overloaded.
-
Maybe that was the subconscious concern I had with "applications" when
@kubukoz suggested it. I'm tending more and more towards "variants", but I hadn't considered "specifications"... though it's almost as overloaded as "application". - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
”Flavour“ ? just throwing this out there after reading other suggestions
so far “Application” and ”Example” resonate the most.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My vote is for specialization. In Java, List would be what's called a generic type List<>. Leveraging the intuition Java programmers already have, calling say a List<Int> a 'specific' type would make sense to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.