Wow, the issue regarding names is much deeper than I originally thought. I would class myself as an above-average user of LR and teach it at a local community college, so I'm still far from being an expert on it like Jeff and Eric, but here's the way I see it as a plebe...
- Not only are two similar adjustments given two different names ("Whites" in Basic is similar to "Highlights" in Tone Curve and "Highlights" in Basic is similar to "Lights" in Tone Curve) AND
- the same name is use in two different places for two different adjustment outcomes ("Highlights" in Basic is in the histogram region below "Highlights" in Tone Curve which is at the top of the Curve) BUT
- according to Eric Chan, there are also three "Saturations" that (to quote) "all do rather different things", yet, to my unschooled eyes (and I'm sure many others), all appear to alter the saturation of hues in the image in generally the same way.
I can clearly see the differences in tone adjustment in cases 1 and 2, but not in case 3, despite what Eric says.
I'm not trying to be an SD here, I just know that when I walk into a teaching situation I will be peppered with queries about this by people who are scratching their heads trying to get a handle on new terminology and wondering why Adobe would adopt such potentially confusing use of terms.
Personally, I think the problem lies with using the word "Whites" in the Basic adjustments. White is white, and, in photography, we've always taken it to be somewhat of an absolute - 100,100,100. Anything less than that - 100,99.9,100 - is not white, but now comes into the realm of "Highlights". I would prefer Adobe use Highlights - Lights - Midtones - Darks - Shadows (not "Blacks" as black is also an absolute: 0,0,0).