[e-lang] Quick comments needed on tgc draft

Mark Miller markm at cs.jhu.edu
Sat Jun 18 14:23:38 EDT 2005

David Hopwood wrote:
>>     Each procedure call places a new frame
>>     on the top of the stack, and the frames are processed from top
>>     to bottom.  In a message-passing system, each frame corresponds
>>     to a message (arrow) and its target (dot).
> Terminology issue: do we count systems with multicast or other
> multiple-target messaging primitives as message-passing systems, or
> is single-target implied unless otherwise specified?

I would count them as message passing. Joule's Channels are multicast, and I'd 
certainly count Joule as a message passing system. But I doubt this 
distinction is relevant within the scope of this paper.

> I also don't much like the SH/AM/XL names. It would be slightly better if
> a different (say sans-serif) font were used to indicate names of entities,
> maybe including vats.

I was thinking of using a font distinction (such as LaTeX typewriter) more 
consistently for all programming-language text, such as variable names. But I 
was specifically avoiding doing so for object names, since they are the 
paper's god's-eye designation of the objects involved, as distinct from the 
program variables used to hold references which designate objects. Perhaps 
LaTeX equation font ("$...$") would be good for object names?

Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain


More information about the e-lang mailing list