[E-Lang] Proposed Naming Convention Changes

[Terry Stanley]

At 01:05 PM 8/22/01 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 10:35 AM -0700 8/22/01, Terry Stanley wrote:
>>The problem with remote (rmt) is that the reference could be local. The
>>use of far (farCar) in the Walnut conventions had the same problem --
>>since the car could be local, the use of far differed from what was
>>defined in the taxonomy.
>
>Perhaps it is my misunderstanding of the goal, but I think of the
>convention as saying how I must treat the name, not what the actual value
>bound to the name is.  If the name is fooRmt, it indicates to me that I
>must treat it as remote, even if the current value bound to it is local.
>Or I really am confused.

No, you are not confused.  This conflict is why it's difficult to find good 
terms.  On the one hand, we are trying to communicate how the value must be 
treated.  On the other hand, we're trying to avoid saying what the value is, 
if what we seem to be saying isn't true.

>>>How about using "remote", abbreviated to "rmt" instead of pass.  "Q" (for
>>>"Queue") might also work.

I think I like "Q".  A "carQ" enables you to queue requests to be delivered 
to a car.  An eventual send ("<-") on a carQ does such queuing.  Since an 
eventual send can be done on any live reference, a variable named "carQ" can 
hold any of them.

--Terry