On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. The "seal" operation, in its essence, is existential encapsulation. The > unseal operation, in its essence, is existential open. The subtle difference > between unseal and existential open is that unseal requires an additional > parameter demonstrating proof of authority. This notion of "guarded > existential open" is very powerful, and nearly free from a language design > perspective.
What an interesting observation! It's exciting how well object capabilities plays with type systems, considering its "heretical" untyped OO origins. I hope to investigate the connection in detail someday. > But getting back to your question, my intention is that interfaces will be > the only mechanism of existential encapsulation. So than no direct access to private fields of another object of the same class. Gotcha. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
