I'm working on some software programming documents where certain types can be inferred from the code*. I have this tendency to then called these inferred types the implicit type. This makes sense because it's a contrast to an explicit type.
What bothers me is that the word implicit appears to have imply as its root. Knowing these types are inferred and not implied makes it odd to use the word implicit. It might however just be the history of the word and thus no longer relevant.
Is it okay to call these inferred types an implicit type?
*In non-programming terms: I have a document which describes an object. Some of the properties of the object are not actually written down, but can be inferred from the other listed properties.