> Mark S. Miller <mailto:erights at google.com>
> September 26, 2013 7:45 PM
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com 
> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>         Kevin Smith <mailto:zenparsing at gmail.com
>         <mailto:zenparsing at gmail.com>>
>
>         - Duck typing *must* work across Realms.  Symbols without a
>         registry do not.  You can make special cases for built-in
>         symbols, but special cases make bad law.
>
>
>     (You learned from me.)
>
>     I agree world-of-realms matters, in many ways. We can solve this
>     more generally, and should. I don't know the timing, but the idea
>     that cross-realm local issues stop global progress via symbols is
>     a bad trade in general. Must avoid getting stuck at local maximum.
>
>
> In the same spirit of brevity, you have this backwards. Local hill 
> climbing with no lookahead is how to get stuck at a local maximum.

That's what I wrote!

We need a world-of-realms spec. If we have one, probably many problems 
become easy to solve. If we don't, then arguments against symbols in 
particular and any world-wide values (value objects) that lack lookahead 
prevail.

> The lookahead needed here is not agreement on a registry, but at least 
> a straw registry whose implications we understand. Perhaps we have 
> one, which is fine. We should examine it as part of this discussion of 
> Symbols.

Why do you assume a mutable, racy registry?

/be

Mark S. Miller <mailto:erights at google.com> September 26, 2013 7:45 PM

> In the same spirit of brevity, you have this backwards. Local hill 
> climbing with no lookahead is how to get stuck at a local maximum.

That's what I wrote!

We need a world-of-realms spec. If we have one, probably many problems 
become easy to solve. If we don't, then arguments against symbols in 
particular and any world-wide values (value objects) that lack lookahead 
prevail.

> The lookahead needed here is not agreement on a registry, but at least 
> a straw registry whose implications we understand. Perhaps we have 
> one, which is fine. We should examine it as part of this discussion of 
> Symbols.

Why do you assume a mutable, racy registry?