Does it make sense to use both "abstract" and "entity" keywords in a Type definition?


#1

My gut feeling is that this is incorrect, but could we use to this to put all extended types in the same table? Is it recommended that we not do that? I trying to understand the guidelines of when to put types in the same table, and when not to (how to use schema name and type key).

extendable abstract entity type TypeA schema name "BASEA" {
  printMe: abstract member function(): string
}

entity type TypeB extends TypeA type key "DERIVEDB" {
  description: string
}

entity type TypeC extends TypeA type key "DERIVEDC" {
  // perhaps implementation of printMe can concatenate all the strings and display it.
  description1: string
  description2: string
}