Rename TypeAndQualifiers to DeclaredType

[dhruvmanila]

Summary

This PR renames TypeAndQualifiers to DeclaredType.

The main motivation for this rename is that in #15848 I need to pass the ReExport information around and TypeAndQualifiers as a name is limited to only include the TypeQualifiers. The re-export information is relevant only for a declared type.

Another potential name that I thought of was TypeWithMetadata which doesn't tie this with using it only in the declaration sites.

[AlexWaygood]

Hmm -- I'm not sure that type qualifiers will always only be relevant for declared types. We hope to at some point support "implicit class variables" -- there's some TODOs in our tests, such as here:

ruff/crates/red_knot_python_semantic/resources/mdtest/attributes.md

Lines 499 to 514 in c69b19f

	We also consider a class variable to be a pure class variable if it is only mentioned in a class
	method.
	```py
	class C:
	@classmethod
	def class_method(cls):
	cls.pure_class_variable = "value set in class method"
	# for a more realistic example, let's actually call the method
	C.class_method()
	# TODO: We currently plan to support this and show no error here.
	# mypy shows an error here, pyright does not.
	# error: [unresolved-attribute]
	reveal_type(C.pure_class_variable) # revealed: Unknown

@sharkdp might have some more context on whether the plan is to support these in a similar way to our current support for explicit ClassVars or not

[sharkdp]

@sharkdp might have some more context on whether the plan is to support these in a similar way to our current support for explicit ClassVars or not

Hm, yes. I'm also not sure if we'll use (a potentially renamed) TypeAndQualifiers for this.

I don't have strong feelings about the name of this struct, but DeclaredType seems a bit too narrow for me. The declared type is pretty much what is stored in the inner: Type<…> field. Maybe AnnotatedType? Following the distinction between type expressions and annotations expressions in the syntax?

[dhruvmanila]

I don't have strong feelings about the name of this struct, but DeclaredType seems a bit too narrow for me. The declared type is pretty much what is stored in the inner: Type<…> field. Maybe AnnotatedType? Following the distinction between type expressions and annotations expressions in the syntax?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. Although, I've realized that I might need to pass the ReExport information via the bindings as well i.e., augment the binding Type with additional information. I'm going to put this on hold until that is finalized.