[arrays]: The OQ3 Spec refers to the term constructor but does not define what it means

[steleman]

What is the expected enhancement?

The OQ3 Spec for Arrays contains the following statement:

The first argument to the array type constructor is the base type of the array.

constructors are associated with object-oriented programming languages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_(object-oriented_programming)

The term constructor and its semantics are not defined in the current OpenQASM3 Spec. The OpenQASM3 Language does not support user-defined types.

Using constructors as means of instantiating object instances has consequences.

For starters, constructors assume a Memory Model, which OpenQASM3 does not have. Furthermore, the presence of constructors as means of instantiating objects implies the existence and definition of corresponding destructors.

If OpenQASM3 is to become an object-oriented language, then constructors and destructors should be fully defined in the Specification. If not, the reference to the term constructor should be removed from the Spec, because it refers to a non-existent language feature.

Side-note: arrays don't have constructors.

Also of concern is the reference - in the same sentence - to the concept of base type. That is, again, a concept borrowed from object-oriented languages. This concept assumes inheritance - single or multiple. The concept of inheritance is not defined in OpenQASM3, as it is not a supported feature of the language. The use of the term base type in the current Spec is confusing and misleading, and should be removed from the Spec.

[jwoehr]

@steleman Can you submit a PR that would concisely make an appropriate modification to the spec to express things more rigorously as you indicate? Maybe the word declaration or declarator or something like that is better than constructor.

[steleman]

Please see: #446

[blakejohnson]

Re: "base type" I suggest that "element type" might be more accurate.

[blakejohnson]

How about "type specifier" as a replacement for "type constructors" in the sentence referenced by Stefan?