A class has elements, not members#3922
Open
henrikt-ma wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
880a241 to
7486889
Compare
Collaborator
Good.
Yes, to me "record members" is different as I think of that as a component - not a class. We could use another name to make that clearer such "record component elements", but it seems a bit clumsy. |
Collaborator
|
There's also "named elements" (classes and components), but I don't think we need to stress that dot-notation can only access named elements. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a cleanup of the use of the term member.
To start with, this PR only addresses the issue of calling the elements of a class its members in a couple of places, when the established language to use is to call them elements.
Should we keep calling the elements of a record members?