typedef syntax vs terminology trade-offs

3.25: adda/oop/classes vs types:

. if using 2 keywords for defining class vs type,
the class could mean a type that is an
adt (abstract data type),
so then one could replace the type`def's
angle brackets (used for an interface literal)
with a simple enclosure
since a class`def would always be an interface,
and would therefore no longer need a variety
of enclosures; eg, t.class: (,,,) .
3.30: adda/dstr/nominally typed structs:
. another way to avoid various enclosure types,
is to use typing of parentheses:
(.braces ,,,), (.set ,,,) .

. any reason to reserve the terms"{class, classwide}
for the way ada uses the concept of class-wide ?
[3.31: adda uses class-wide semantics universally ]
. notice the english meanings of
"(what type) vs "(what class),
or "(typical) vs "(classical) .
...
. a good reserved meaning for "(class) vs "(type),
is when dealing with generics,
eg, the class of scalars
includes many enum.types .
3.27:
. generally, the meaning of "(class) within the
field of logic -- the origins of oop nomenclature --
is a set defined by a predicate .
. a class can include many types,
and for many reasons .
. the type.classes of interest to oop and generics
are those where membership is defined by
shared interfaces .