> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back

> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again. I wouldn't necessarily call "GlobalScopeForWorker" more clunky than "WorkerGlobalScope", just a bit longer, but also more descriptive. Using the languages namespacing features might also make it more obvious, e.g. "Worker::GlobalScope" and "Worklet::GlobalScope" or the inverted version "GlobalScope::{Worker,Worklet}". Looking at it from a functional programming perspective, I also like approaches of the form "GlobalScopeFor({Worker,Worklet})", i.e. a function returning the respective thing. Naming things is hard, but the possibilities are endless...