very glad to hear this! I think "big footprint" is what I was really getting at.
Looking at my own code, I tend to use these "accessors" a lot more often in explicit code than in tacit. I still think there's a good idea there, but I now think it could be handled better with a verb-creating library than a special thing for names. I do have another thought about the `::` thing though, which is a new/better hierarchical naming convention for locales. Right now, importing a module might result in multiple conames being defined. (For example, importing my own UI library results in a coname being created for each ui widget class, and there's nothing I can do about that.) I worry that as more people start to create their own modules, we will run into issues with name collisions. I would love to be able to have `load 'tangentstorm/j-kvm'` generate exactly one top-level namespace, kvm, with other things underneath it: kvm::vm for viewmat, kvm::vt for terminal codes kvm::ui::edit , kvm::ui::list , and so on for individual widgets. I'm not necessarily trying to "claim' what "::" means, but... it's such a "big footprint" syntax, it should be used for something big. (I'll try to write this and my '..' thing as proposals on github this weekend) On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:46 AM Eric Iverson <[email protected]> wrote: > Michal, > > Your comment: "what's up with this new `name::` syntax?" > stirred up interesting stuff. > > The change was in a beta, so was intended to promote discussion. > > Henry's response: "Possession is nine points of the law. :)" > did have a smile, was a simple fact, and should absolutely not be taken to > mean that the discussion is over. Jsoftware has a good track record of > backing out of mistakes :) > > Your comment triggered a serious new look. We (back to that in a minute) > decided that: > 1. the change would lose a whole whack of good primitives: a:: A:: abc:: > etc:: > 2. self effacing is for esoteric performance and should not have such a big > footprint > > The next beta will probably adopt a spelling of name_: for self effacing. > > Your message triggered good discussion and time will tell if it boils down > to a solid proposal. Though I confess to being very leery of more mechanism > for assignment in tacit. > > The WE referred to earlier is myself, Chris, Henry, and Bill. This has > worked reasonably well since we lost Ken and Roger had less and less > involvement. > > We don't vote, proceed cautiously, and with consensus. > > The time is overdue for the involvement of more people and more formal > mechanisms. We will move in that direction, but cautiously. Probably the > first step will be creating a more appropriate media than the programming > forum for language changes. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
