Comments on Sept Meeting Notes

Kevin Smith zenparsing at
Wed Sep 25 11:47:27 PDT 2013

> You call namespaced strings "more convenient than symbols, serves the
> purpose equally well". These two things are obviously not equivalent --
> namespaced strings are obviously weaker.

Obviously.  I don't contend otherwise.  I'm asking a different question:
 does their added "strength" justify the added complexity which symbols
bring to the object model?  The burden of proof lies with those wanting to
extend the object model, not the other way around.

> We could use them today, yet hardly anyone does this, because it's
> inconvenient in it's own ways.

How are namespaced strings inconvenient other than being a non-identifier,
or perhaps a longish identifier?

> Yet name collisions happen all the time in the wild, even with ad hoc
> namespaces,

Can you provide an example of this?

> and this is the problem symbols completely solve. Ad hoc namespaces *can't
> * solve the collision

They cannot guarantee collision avoidance with arbitrary strings, sure.
 But is that even a requirement? Why?  That's the question I'm posing.

> and obviously *don't* solve convenience problem -- if they did, we'd
> already be using them.

That doesn't constitute proof, though, does it?  : )

{ Kevin }
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list