On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Derick Eddington <[email protected]> wrote: > Michele, as you've demonstrated, you don't know what you're talking > about. You seem determined to not learn in order to continue some pet > fantasy.
> In implicit phasing, the phases are *implied* by where identifiers occur. In > explicit phasing, the phases are explicitly specified. Implicit phasing > does not mean only that the (for --- (meta ---)) import syntax is not > required, it means that the phases when libraries are instantiated is > implied. If libraries are always instantiated regardless of the phase > of identifiers, it is not implicit phasing because what is implied is > ignored, therefore the term "implicit" is inappropriate. I should never > have used the term "on-demand" because what it actually is is the > essence of implicit phasing: instantiation phases happening when > identifiers imply they must. I understand this is your definition of what implicit phasing means. I am not sure if Aziz thinks this is the only interpretation or if he is willing to admit Ypsilon interpretation as acceptable (he said he has no copyright on the term), Here we are discussing about words. I interpreted "implicit" in a weak sense just meaning "there is no need for (for (meta))" whereas you say "no, implicit also means the phases are instantiated implicitly depending if the identifiers are used!", in a strong sense. If Aziz says "the term implicit phasing must be intended only in strong sense" then I will agree with you that we need a different term for what Ypsilon is doing, that I have misinterpreted implicit phasing, and will not use anymore the term for meaning something different than what Ikarus is doing.
