Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 16:08 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >>> We need decent names for these. My personal inclinations are: >>> >>> ref-types => RefType? (definitely remove plural, shift to word caps) >>> copy-compat => Compat? >> Use 'Compatible'; the abbreviation sounds ugly. > > Worth considering. My immediate thought is that "Compatible?" is long, a > pain to type, and will create indentation challenges...
It's only 4 extra characters. >>> but I have absolutely no useful thoughts for what to call >>> top-copy-compat. >> What is it intended to be useful for? > > In practice, I don't expect most users to use it at all. It is needed > internally by the complete inference system. This means that we need to > be able to emit it in output, and therefore that we need to be able to > re-admit it in input. So it needs a name. > > Pragmatically, it shows up in some unusual cases where an inner type > that is not mutation sensitive gets wrapped by a constructor. If it is obscure enough that conciseness doesn't matter, I suggest MutationInsensitivelyCompatible. -- David-Sarah Hopwood _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
