[Self-interest] argument parents (was: general ifTrue)

Hernan Wilkinson hernan.wilkinson at gmail.com
Thu Dec 23 17:15:41 UTC 2021


Hi Dave,
 do you have some links to "Steimann's ideas"? I'm interesting of getting
rid of nil. That is something I've been thinking for a long time (since
2005) and I'd like to see what other people think about it.

Thanks!
Hernan.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:48 PM David Ungar <ungar at mac.com> wrote:

> Yes, after swimming in Swift, I agree. Immutable slots, set at creation
> time, are worth the additional language complexity.
> (If/when I ever get back to playing with languages, though, I think that
> Korz holds the most promise.)
> in Self-like terms, maybe a copy primitive that rips out selected
> assignment slots?
> Or a special nil that can only be overwritten once?
> Hmm... I'd want to pull in some of Steimann's ideas, he gets rid of nil by
> unifying across counts.
>
> Maybe after I retire...
>
>
> - Dave
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:09 AM, kjx <kjx at ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > for what it's worth, I now thing this is one of the inherent weaknesses
> > of the Self model - not just for arguments, but even for any constant
> slot:
> > there's no good way to make "per-instance" constant slots.
> >
> > Consider points - Self points are logically immutable,
> > but they have to be declared with mutable slots.
> >
> > This is why Grace ended up going with Emerald style object creation
> expressions
> > (which are pretty much anonymous classes) rather than cloning prototypes.
> >
> > I guess you could have slots with semantics where
> > - cloning the object automatically uninitialises them in the clone,
> > - once assigned/initialised they cannot be re-initialised.
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / God Yul / Happy New Year / etc
> everyone - James
> >
> >> On 17/12/2021, at 6:54AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I noticed that I did not actually ever change a parent after I had
> >> cloned an object. Perhaps that use case would be better expressed as
> >> setting a value of an argument once and for all, like in theory :self*
> >> is set when the activation is created?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Self-interest mailing list
> > Self-interest at lists.selflanguage.org
> > http://lists.selflanguage.org/mailman/listinfo/self-interest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Self-interest mailing list
> Self-interest at lists.selflanguage.org
> http://lists.selflanguage.org/mailman/listinfo/self-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.selflanguage.org/pipermail/self-interest/attachments/20211223/d2edfc93/attachment.html>


More information about the Self-interest mailing list