On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not right in what sense? I'm not sure whether you're > > claiming that the operator form of intrinsic::eval isn't a > > namespaced operator (in which case, how is it not a pun?) or > > that it's not the *only* namespaced operator. (Or maybe you > > mean something else entirely...) > > I mean that all names are in some namespace, and the name you > think of as "isNaN" is really "null::isNaN", where null represents > a "compatibility namespace", to pick something less ambiguous than > "eval".
All names are in some namespace, yes, but not every identifier (using the term somewhat loosely) is a name. 'eval' can be a name (i.e., it can name a function that performs evaluation, or it can name some other value if it is re-bound), but *qua operator* I don't see how it could be a name -- unless it's unique among operators. And if it is unique in this respect, is the benefit worth the inconsistency? > > > Do operator identifiers (like '<') name syntactic bindings? > > No. But 'eval' does/can? > > > > Or maybe the term 'operator' is being used equivocally here? > > Operator in the sense that '<' is syntax that causes the language > implementation to operated upon values, but there is no operator > overloading and no syntactic bindings for operators at present. > (They were in for a while, and operators were in the intrinsic > namespace: intrinsic::=== for example.) But it sounds to me like the intrinsic::eval operator depends upon the notion that operators have syntactic bindings. Otherwise, I don't see what sense it makes to refer to an operator's name. And if that doesn't make sense, then neither does referring to an operator's namespace. -Jon > > --lars > > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
