On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I suspect we will get around to having some level of syntactic support for > defining these things so I'm more concerned about how we talk about them (ie, > the name of the language feature) then I am about what what has to be typed > in source code and possible source code name conflicts. > > From that perspective, a fairly unusual noun that is unlike to be confused > with application domain concepts would be ideal. > > One possibility is : moniker > Microsoft COM uses that term for a different but somewhat similar > abstraction. Other than that usage, which seems benign, moniker seems > unlikely to carry other unwarranted technical implications. > > Consider: > "A property key is either a string or a moniker" > "If the key is a private moniker then then it isn't reflected by > Object.getOwnPropertyNames" > > Yes, this is exactly the kind of "weird" I was hoping for—something that really distinguishes the concept from all other existing language concepts. Rick > > > Allen > > > > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Russell Leggett wrote: > > Symbol is not bad. I think people could use it for similar purposes as > > Ruby's symbols, but it might get a little confusing at the differences - > > not that it should stop us if we like the word. > > > > Some other ideas: > > > > Key, Signature (unforgeable), Token, Privilege > > > > - Russ > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM, François REMY <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > Symbol could already be used by parsers and compilers. What about > > > UniqueName? > > > De : Rick Waldron > > > Envoyé : 01/08/2012 22:34 > > > À : Mark S. Miller > > > Cc : es-discuss > > > Objet : Re: The Name of the Name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > > > > > I like it. +1. > > > > > > > Symbol was on my short list but worried it was too similar to Name. > > > > > > It seems less likely to conflict with extant code, but not by much. > > > > > > +1 (but we can get weirder if we wanted to) > > > > > > Rick > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected] > > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > Lisp precedent: Objects which are used to name things (that is, they > > > > > are used as keys by identity), and may be not globally-named > > > > > themselves, are called symbols. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected] > > > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that we have both private Names and unique Names, the general > > > > > > category covering both is simply Names. Properties can therefore be > > > > > > indexed by strings or Names. Strings are the ones consisting of a > > > > > > sequence of characters that can typically be pronounced. Names are > > > > > > anonymous identities. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the real world, names and identities are distinct concepts, and > > > > > > names are the one corresponding to a unique sequence of characters > > > > > > that can be pronounced. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is "Name" exactly the wrong name for a opaque unique identity > > > > > > typically used to index a property? Is there a better term? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > --MarkM > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > --MarkM > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
