[e-lang] Repost: FQN confusion

[Kevin Reid]

(I wrote this originally 7 months ago. I'm reposting it because I didn't
get a solid answer then, I have no ideas myself, and I have plans for
E-on-CL that require this being straightened out.)

   Confusion \Con*fu"sion\, n. [F. confusion, L. confusio.]
      1. The state of being mixed or blended so as to produce
         indistinctness or error; indistinct combination; disorder;
         tumult.
         [1913 Webster]

     -- dict.org

(In this message, I use "FQN of an object" to mean  
object.__getAllegedType().getFQName().)

                      E               Java mapping
Object variable      foo             foo
Guard variable       Foo             Foo
Maker variable       makeFoo         makeFoo
Object's FQN         makeFoo$foo     Foo
Guard .getFQName()   Foo             Foo
   or                 makeFoo$foo
Guard's FQN          ...$Foo         Class
Maker's FQN          makeFoo         StaticMaker

Problem: In E conventions, "Foo" is the FQN and <import> name of a  
guard, but in Java mapping "Foo" is the FQN of an instance.

Problem: In E conventions the FQN of an interface-ish guard (def  
PassByCopy { ... }) is the same as the FQN (in Java style) of what it
describes, which seems wrong; <PassByCopy> is not itself (necessarily)
PassByCopy.

Question: What should be the FQNs of native objects in E-on-CL? That  
is, what does 1.__getAllegedType().getFQName() return?

Question: What should be the FQNs of guards defined in E, and how  
does one write E code to implement this?

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