[e-lang] Proposal: deprecate "rcvr" in favor of "ref"

[Kevin Reid]

On Dec 2, 2006, at 20:43, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Kevin Reid wrote:
>> *Everything* is a ref, or a ref is something which behaves like its
>> target, and in either case something called ':ref' can't be any
>> different than ':any', and the same for ':ref[X]' and ':X'.
>
> :ref is indeed the same as :any. However, :X means "a near  
> reference to an X", whereas :ref[X] (or whatever we decide to call  
> it) means "a reference to an X".

My remark above was not on the basis of what /is/, but the / 
concepts/, as they feel to me. I was arguing against this proposal  
because of the conflict between those.

While it seems slightly less bad due to your latest explanation, I  
still think this is giving too many meanings to "ref[erence]", and  
that there's nothing to associate the name "ref" with weakening the  
guard.

Especially, we already have Ref, which is a Safe but Magic object  
whose features apply to *any value*, and have nothing to do  
specifically with might-be-far references.

I agree that 'rcvr' is a poor name, but I find 'ref' to be worse.

Perhaps:

:somewhere[X]
:anywhere[X]
:world[X]
:maybeFar[X]

-- probably none of those, but let's discuss it.

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>