[e-lang] Proposal: deprecate "rcvr" in favor of "ref"
Mark S. Miller
markm at cs.jhu.edu
Sun Dec 3 20:31:38 CST 2006
Dean Tribble wrote:
> 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"
The guard we're trying to name specifies merely "not necessarily near". Since
E only gives a runtime semantics to guards, there's no way to write a guard
that imposes a static no-call constraint while preserving the dynamic value.
I continue to hope that we'll eventually have an E IDE with a lint-ish tool
that does guard-advised type inferencing and alerts the programmer of likely
problems. Such a static checking/advice tool could interpret the guard we're
trying to name as imposing a static nocall constraint.
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
More information about the e-lang