ALU capability (was Re: [E-Lang] Authority -- what is its dual?)

[Ken Kahn]

Jonathan A Rees  wrote:

But if there's EQ, then one user can define a built-in datatype that
no other user can emulate.  For example, I can define particular
objects to be boolean true and false, and allow no other objects to
qualify.  If others are obligated to work with me (I'm the boss or the
police, etc.), then I'm effectively a "system", so what's the
difference?

-------------

This is another thread that got quiet too soon. As I understand Jonathan the
point is that it is not so important whether there are non-emulatable things
in the language or in the "system". Strong EiaO means that anyone can make a
"3" that is interchangable with the built-in 3. (And the thread about
Smalltalk not quite living up to EiaO died without any details being
presented. Maybe that discussion should continue as well.)

What I understood Jonathan to be asking (and I didn't see an answer) is why
is it so important whether the language designers define types that can't be
emulated or instead some others implement services that require objects that
can't be emulated. He suggested that could be done if EQ was available, but
isn't the problem just as great when brands are used? Using rights
amplification someone could implement true and false and maybe you need to
interact with this code. Isn't the problem of having things that you can't
emulate unavoidable in a language like E?

Best,

-ken kahn ( www.toontalk.com )