[e-lang] Why optUnget is built from optUncall, rather than the reverse

Mark Miller markm at cs.jhu.edu
Thu Jun 2 10:49:36 EDT 2005


Kevin Reid wrote:
> On May 30, 2005, at 21:12, Mark Miller wrote:
>> When parent loaders do not represent greater authority than their 
>> children, then perhaps this patterns isn't needed. But since it's 
>> needed sometimes, I think it's best if loaders generally follow this 
>> pattern.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "parent" and "child" loaders. Do you mean 
> package loaders / directories?

Yes. As in <file> is an ancestor of <file:/usr>, which is an ancestor of 
<file:/usr/local>. Likewise, <unsafe> is an ancestor of <unsafe:java.lang.*>. 
In these cases, the ancestors provide more authority than do their descendants.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

     Cheers,
     --MarkM



More information about the e-lang mailing list