[e-lang] A broken brand?

Mark Miller erights at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 08:31:09 EST 2008

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote:
>  >  Depressingly, none of the following tools would have helped:
>  >
>  >  a) conventional static type checking
>  Wouldn't static type checking have shown that the box() function
>  passed was not the one handed over in the first place?

Yes, which would have prevented intermediation. When this is not
contrary to intention, that's fine, and enables Ping's pattern.

An interesting thing about MarcS' pattern is that it allows
intermediation. This enables MarcS' patterns to be used across a
synchronous membrane, which we can't do if we rely on

Do the following statements make sense:

* MarcS pattern amplifies authority.
* Ping's pattern amplifies permission.


Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain


More information about the e-lang mailing list