domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-10-13T02:39:30.619Z)
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry, I misunderstood. In any case, yes. > Why do you assume a mutable, racy registry? Care to propose a better registry? (I agree that we should disqualify any registry that is also a global communications channel.)
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry, I misunderstood. In any case, yes. > > > 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? Care to propose a better registry? (I agree that we should disqualify any registry that is also a global communications channel.) > > > /be > -- Cheers, --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130926/63ca8134/attachment.html>