Language around shared types vs type unification
IanKemp opened this issue · comments
what-are-shared-types.md uses the term "shared types" as a synonym for what is called "type unification" in .NET Core. Would it not make sense to use the .NET Core nomenclature for this feature, or is it purposefully named differently as it is not implemented the same (although it effectively ends up working the same)?
Additional comments about what-are-shared-types.md:
- uses the language ".NET", but .NET Framework (AFAIK) does not support type unification; ".NET" should be changed to ".NET Core". Yes, it may appear implicit since this project targets .NET Core, but it would make the document more correct. (Note sure how this will play with .NET 5 and whatever Microsoft intends to call it going forward...)
- final sentence: "In this mode, the assembly version provided by the host uses is always used." => has an unnecessary "uses", should be: "In this mode, the assembly version provided by the host is always used."
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has no recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Please comment if you believe this should remain open, otherwise it will be closed in 14 days. Thank you for your contributions to this project.
Closing due to inactivity.
If you are looking at this issue in the future and think it should be reopened, please make a commented here and mention natemcmaster so he sees the notification.