RE: [External] : Re: Adding support for xref jumping to headers/interfaces

[Drew Adams]

>   > TBH, I don't see how this could be named well to fit all languages.
>   > I like "declaration" word more, if we need a name.
> 
> I think that "declaration" will be clear, even for users of the language
> where the precise term is "interface".
> 
> If I understand right, an "interface" would describe an entire package's
> calling conventions.  Is that correct?  If so, then since we are talking
> about the calling specs for one specific function, "declaration"
> would fit that better than "interface".

Caveat: I haven't been following this.  And I have no problem with 
"declaration" for what I think you're describing. But just to mention this:

A function's "calling specs", meaning a spec of its arguments and its return 
value, are often called its "signature".  This is the case for both programming 
in general and theory.