So it is obvious that the discussion has ended (even though in a rather
confusing way). So could we have a sum up of both proposals which are
currently in the race and then decide.
To ease decision I'd like to ask for a description of the model, of
syntax, of optimizations, a workplan together with a rough estimate of
effort.
Does that make sense
Christian
"Kevin Glynn" <glynn@info.ucl.ac.be> wrote in message
news:<15598.11096.145555.712948@gargle.gargle.HOWL>...
>
> As far as I understand your previous message. your proposed syntax
> is:
>
> >>> pvr@info.ucl.ac.be (Peter Van Roy) writes:
> >>>
> >>> > What if LOC is an object attribute, which is indistinguishable
> >>> > from an atom? I.e., the atom 'a' is an attribute, but I want to
> >>> > use the atom
> >>> > 'a' inside a method?
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand your objection. I propose to write @a to
> >>> access
> >>> the attribute and to write @a:=E to update it. I believe my
proposal
> >>> is more uniform.
> >>>
> >>> D.I to access the value of an indexed data-structure
> >>> D.I:=E to update it
> >>> @A to access the value of an attribute
> >>> @A :=E to update it
> >>>
>
> (where A is now a reference i.e. cell, attr, or D#K pair)
>
> which is a quote from:
>
> >>> From: Denys Duchier <Denys.Duchier@ps.uni-sb.de>
> >>> Sender: owner-oz-hackers@ps.uni-sb.de
> >>> To: hackers@mozart-oz.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Uniform State, for review ...
> >>> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:09:59 +0200
> >>>
>
> We have already spent a lot of time discussing whether the syntax
> should be
>
> ref :=
>
> or
>
> @ref :=
>
> As I said, I have no wish to repeat this argument.
>
> k
>
>
>
>
> Denys Duchier writes:
> > glynn@info.ucl.ac.be (Kevin Glynn) writes:
> >
> > > I do not accept that we should introduce strange syntax for
updating
> > > cells and attributes just because it might make our strange
syntax
> > > for updating dictionaries look more consistent (which btw I don't
> > > think it does).
> >
> > This is a gross misrepresentation of the current discussion. You
> > started it by proposing to extend existing syntax to permit more
> > convenient/uniform access/update for cells and attributes. We
already
> > had syntax for access/update of mappings; it doesn't have to be
made
> > _more_ consistent; it is consistent.
> >
> > My revised proposal (which borrows from yours) rests on a uniform
> > semantic account and is a conservative extension of existing
syntax.
> > It gives us both "mapping" polymorphism (as we currently have), but
> > also "reference" polymorphism (which is new).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Denys Duchier Denys.Duchier@ps.uni-sb.de
> > Forschungsbereich Programmiersysteme (Programming Systems
Lab)
> > Universitaet des Saarlandes, Geb. 45
http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier
> > Postfach 15 11 50 Phone: +49 681 302 5618
> > 66041 Saarbruecken, Germany Fax: +49 681 302 5615
> > -
> > Please send submissions to hackers@mozart-oz.org
> > and administriva mail to hackers-request@mozart-oz.org.
> > The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
> -
> Please send submissions to hackers@mozart-oz.org
> and administriva mail to hackers-request@mozart-oz.org.
> The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
-
Please send submissions to hackers@mozart-oz.org
and administriva mail to hackers-request@mozart-oz.org.
The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.