[cap-talk] Petnames versus E-order with ocaps

[Stiegler, Marc D]

Ah, yes, you said what I meant. The only qualifier is that the name isn't necessarily a text string: we use pet icons, for example, as well. 

--marcs 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org 
> [mailto:cap-talk-bounces at mail.eros-os.org] On Behalf Of Charles Landau
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: General discussions concerning capability systems.
> Subject: Re: [cap-talk] Petnames versus E-order with ocaps
> 
> Stiegler, Marc D wrote:
> > Attempting to be more precise, it is a one to one binding 
> between an 
> > object reference and a particular user context. If you and 
> I hold the 
> > same object reference, we can have different petnames for it.
> 
> That doesn't seem right, because there are many user 
> contexts, so the map can't be one-to-one.
> 
> Would you say that, given a particular user context (in which 
> names are interpreted), a petname is a one to one binding 
> between an object reference and a name (a text string)?
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>