Comments on Sept Meeting Notes
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Thu Sep 26 19:55:52 PDT 2013
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Mark S. Miller <mailto:erights at google.com>
>> September 26, 2013 7:45 PM
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com<mailto:
>> brendan at mozilla.com>> wrote:
>> Kevin Smith <mailto:zenparsing at gmail.com
>> <mailto:zenparsing at gmail.com>>
>> - Duck typing *must* work across Realms. Symbols without a
>> registry do not. You can make special cases for built-in
>> symbols, but special cases make bad law.
>> (You learned from me.)
>> I agree world-of-realms matters, in many ways. We can solve this
>> more generally, and should. I don't know the timing, but the idea
>> that cross-realm local issues stop global progress via symbols is
>> a bad trade in general. Must avoid getting stuck at local maximum.
>> In the same spirit of brevity, you have this backwards. Local hill
>> climbing with no lookahead is how to get stuck at a local maximum.
> That's what I wrote!
> We need a world-of-realms spec. If we have one, probably many problems
> become easy to solve. If we don't, then arguments against symbols in
> particular and any world-wide values (value objects) that lack lookahead
Sorry, I misunderstood. In any case, yes.
> The lookahead needed here is not agreement on a registry, but at least a
>> straw registry whose implications we understand. Perhaps we have one, which
>> is fine. We should examine it as part of this discussion of Symbols.
> Why do you assume a mutable, racy registry?
Care to propose a better registry?
(I agree that we should disqualify any registry that is also a global
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss