[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Shared/class;instance/local
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Date: 1 Oct 87 21:00 PDT
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>'s message of 01 Oct 87 16:21 PDT
- Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
I agree with Cointe about the intuitiveness of the name
``shared'' versus ``class.'' I agree with Danny about ``instance''
being better than ``local.''
Certainly a reasonable choice of vocabulary would be shared/instance.
But then I would request that we use :shared, and :instance for the
I'm not sure we've come to grips with the real problem, though.
The real problem is the distinction between the CLOS language
constructs - in particular their syntax - and the English we use to
describe them. There is no problem, aside from confusion, with
having CLOS provide for slots with allocation type :class and
calling such a slot a shared slot.
Yes, it is confusion I would like to avoid, now and with at least some
forseeable extensions. It is simpler to remember to use the descriptive
term rather than a technofied synonym, or even to remember a technofied
if it is used as the descriptive term.
If I were to contemplate rewriting the CLOS specification to
use the term ``class'' where ``shared'' was used before, I would
opt for re-phrasing the noun phrase ``shared slot'' as ``a slot
whose allocation type is :class'' in order to be precise.
In this specification document, perhaps that is what we should do,
whatever vocabulary we settle on. I thought precision was our principal