[E-Lang] ERTP-aware MintMaker

Dan Moniz dnm@pobox.com
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:44:34 -0500

On 2/15/01 9:32 PM, "Mark S. Miller" <markm@caplet.com> wrote:

> At 04:23 PM Wednesday 2/14/01, steve jenson wrote:
>> According to "E in a Walnut", and MarkM himself, there is going to be
>> a new keyword in the language called "describe" which will take care
>> of this sort of self-referencing issue. Therefore my code, while
>> stylistically ugly, is the cleanest to fix upon completion of that
>> function to the language.
>> At least, that was my take on it. And I'll certainly concede to you having
>> picked a cleaner way of doing it if I hadn't known of forthcoming changes
>> to the language.
> Actually, the proposed keyword is "declare", although I think either Dean or
> MarcS suggested "forward" and Dean suggested "promise".  Plausible also is
> "introduce".  Now's as good a time as any to publicly propose this.  For the
> moment I'll say "declare", but let's postpone arguing about the keyword until
> we figure out whether it's a good idea (or invent a variant that is a good
> idea).


Having given the rest of the text Mark had included in his mail (which I
have snipped) a thorough, albeit brief, first going over, I don't have any
strong objections to the addition of the keyword given Mark's explanation. I
do, however, side with Dean on the idea of calling it "promise" in the sense
that I think it lends more, when reading the code, to the nature of what is
being done. "declare", I think, is too ambiguous inside the context of
programming elsewhere to convey the same meaning. This is a largely visceral
opinion of mine, though, so take it as it is.

When I get some time (whenever _that_ is), I'll re-read the post (and
indeed, any following discussion) and espouse more on the topic if I have
any strong feelings on the matter, but I think the proposal is in better
hands with the rest of E-Lang ;]

Dan Moniz <dnm@pobox.com> [http://www.pobox.com/~dnm/]