Overview

Porting context from #6022 > #6022 (comment):

A number of the no- rules make sense as things that won't be turned on and have no inverse, so a blanket rule against no- prefixes is a bad idea.
I agree though that it makes sense for us to advise against that naming if it's feasible that we will add inverse functionality to a rule.

@typescript-eslint/no-extraneous-class is mentioned as a potential rule to rename:

• I doubt anyone would ever want the inverse of this unless they absolutely love java.
• would be good to rename this so it's clearer though (no-class-as-namespace?)

Personally, I slightly prefer no-extraneous-class because it directly implies that the practice is bad. no-class-as-namespace just says what the practice is, without that explicit negative connotation. But maybe that's just me - posting this issue to hear other folks' thoughts!