Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[Konstantin Kharlamov]

I vote for "declaration". I like both "interface" and "declaration", but given 
Dmitry's reasoning below, I'm also inclined to vote for "declaration".

On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 23:53 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 23:40, John Yates wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 7:19 PM Yuan Fu<casouri@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > I think “interface” is widely used and conveys the meaning well. Java,
> > > Clojure and Javascript call them interfaces, too.
> > In the C++ community the term 'interface' is part of the
> > vernacular, especially within the TLAs API and ABI.
> 
> But would you call that navigation "jumping to method's interface(s)"?
> 
> AFAIK, in Java you still call the method definitions inside an interface 
> (file/entity) "method declarations". Unless it's a "default" method, 
> available with Java 8+.
> 
> Clojure is similarly able to define Java interfaces (with no special 
> term for methods enumerated inside, AFAIK), or Protocols (methods inside 
> are called "protocol methods", but it would probably be fair to call 
> them "declarations" as well).
> 
> More importantly, I guess, in both Java or C/C++ you can have method 
> declarations that are not part of an "interface". E.g. you have some 
> class with abstract method or several.
> 
> The LSP protocol uses the term "declaration", so we probably won't make 
> too much of a mistake reusing that term. But, indeed, it sounds similar 
> enough to "definition".