[E-Lang] E FAQ

[David Wagner]

[Forwarded with permission.  --MarkM]

> This seems to be a plausible extension by itself, but let's be careful once 
> again in considering such extensions.  A dozen individually plausible 
> extensions might be incoherent or worse in combination.  That's why it would 
> be good to have a concrete design for a minimal language expressing some 
> abstraction of the Java 2 security model.  E is a stable enough target to 
> shoot at.  Java 2 itself is stable (even if too complex to reason about).  
> Of course, questions such as yours are necessary on the path to other 
> concrete designs.  But even one change rarely works by itself.  Rather, we 
> must consider at least what the original system looks like once the 
> consequences of this change have been pushed through.

By the way, I agree completely.

-- David