Re: Shared/class;instance/local

[Danny Bobrow <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
allocation options.

    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
criterion.