WHO the package supporting the object, stringifies to long name
.WHERE the memory address of the object
.HOW the metaclass object: “Higher Order Workings” [ed. could be used for structually typed object systems]
.WHEN (reserved for events?)
.WHY (reserved for documentation?)
.WHENCE autovivification closure
.WHICH the object’s identity value
.WHAT the protoobject of the type, stringifies to short name ~ ‘()’

We are thinking of about(declaration) or declaration.about.

This is an example, not some best practice.

Think typeinfo in COM.

We are looking at having “documentation” as a first class part of the catalog model.

You would likely populate this with “sugar” on the declarations in a source file.

BTW: there are no objects in our base model. You can, of course, model them.

same here. infooooof ist terrible. I don’t like camelcasing either. What about introducing “-”? info-of() or just info().

Lars

Either you would use inline documentation (like the documentation comments) or you would use external documentation. Not such a mixture…

My 2 cts

Open to new names.

In fact, Brad said that he had hoped we would change it prior to it getting in the bits.

Note that is not that same as typeof() or Identifier.class — as our data model is a good deal different.

the best analogy in the CLR world is typeof().

var type = typeof(Person);

That said, that is not quite right, but from a pragmatics standpoint, it works fine as an analogy.

In short, “M” now has reflection.