>
I know executables might be the right name now, but it always has the long standing meaning of binary executables which might get you confused when reading the method name.
I can see your point about mixing this up with binary executables, but OTOH I'd expect people to get more and more used to applying the term to methods/constructors, given that it is also used in the JDK 8 with that meaning. The JavaDoc further clarifies forExecutables()'s purpose.
> If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call it "Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?
Hmmm, I think this would be indeed a step too far.
IMO the general concept and its manifestation in method/type identifiers don't have to match 100%. In some cases we speak about "method and constructor constraints" anyways, and in section 4.5 we also explicitly say "the term "method constraint" refers to
constraints declared on methods as well as constructors." So I think we don't have to adapt the spec wording, but IMO using the correct method/type names would be beneficial for the consistency of the API (which is what most users work with).
--Gunnar