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

[Dean Tribble]

Your examples of "What we'd ideally like to say," makes me want a
clarification:   For example, "possibly eventual" permits of manually
testing whether the reference is near, and then just using it as near.
Since I think that's generally a bad style, I was assuming that the guard
should represent the programmer declaration that the reference should be
only treated eventually (i.e., with "send"), even if it's not.  This would
typically be used for references that might be remote, but might be used
within a vat e.g., for observers that should not be invoked synchronously.
Which semantics does/should this guard specify?

The difference between "nocall"and "not necessarily near"On 12/3/06, Mark S.
Miller <markm at cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> John Carlson wrote:
> > I don't know much about E, but how about 'rref' or 'remref'
> > (maybe too much like remove instead of remote).
>
> Has the same problem as "rmt", "remote", "far", and "eventual": The guard
> we
> need does not say the reference is remote, far, or eventual, just that it
> might be. "Possibly eventual", "possibly remote", or "not necessarily
> near"
> captures what we'd ideally like to say, but we're still at a loss for a
> short
> name that expresses any of these.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/attachments/20061203/b4072869/attachment.html