A type that doesn't suggest another DDD type

[xenoterracide]

the types mentioned in the blue book are more of special focus types (this required special attention). DDD is not limited to those in design. For example I once used the strategy pattern along with an abstract factory, assembler, and the first step of a two-step view. I would like to see Class added as a type. I would be ok with a name other than Class, Object might also be good.

notes: !immutable is inappropriate on ValueType as that is immutable by definition. BasicType is inappropriate for DDD as it is documented to be equivalent to a hibrernate @Embeddable but DDD explicitly says that storage technology and other 3rd party technology should not be mentioned in the domain model as persistent, and in general, are not ... relevant to business design requirement.

[tavoda]

Hello @xenoterracide, I don't understand your first paragraph. What you expect sculptor have to support?
For !immutable in ValueType, it's of course option which you don't have to use. Sometimes it's useful. If you don't like it you can even enforce your rule in check override.
BasicType is extension which is useful. You don't have to use it. DDD is theoretical paradigm. Practical usage is something different and we have to develop software based on existing technology and libraries. Again, this are extensions which you don't have to use.

[xenoterracide]

Sorry for the late reply. The problem is that there's no appropriate keyword for something that is not one of the types you already support, e.g. Class Sometimes an important thing is not one of the patterns mentioned in any of the DDD books. Like I said, a set of strategy pattern classes have no keyword that makes sense to define them as. Class would be appropriate.