Well in C++ at least abstract has a specific meaning,
Excuse my blunt question: did you read the part of my previous post about the analogy with abstract classes?
Yes, but I don't think I understood your argument, sorry.
I've nothing against changing that term, however, "abstract" still cuts it best and even the definition from Webster's seems to fit nicely IMO.
Btw. a "named wildcard that represents a category of variations with a similar (abstract) concept" matches the above defintion as well, doesn't it?
I still don't get what's wrong with the "abstract" term, I guess...
The term we use here is less important than most of the other comments that Rob and others have come up with, so if you're set on it, lets go with that until or unless someone comes up with a killer alternative. John.