[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       e-lang
Subject:    Re: [e-lang] Why optUnget is built from optUncall,
From:       Kevin Reid <kpreid () attglobal ! net>
Date:       2005-06-01 22:55:42
Message-ID: 9e7354265831b23bfde1158233278d32 () attglobal ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On May 30, 2005, at 21:12, Mark Miller wrote:

> Kevin,
>
> In the XXX comments in your lisp implementation, you ask why a 
> Loader's optUnget is implemented in terms of its optUncall, rather 
> than the other way around. Does the iAmHome3 example in 
> <http://www.erights.org/data/serial/jhu-paper/subgraph-security.html> 
> successfully answer this question?

I believe I understand the example, but I do not see the relevance to 
this code, as the difference is entirely in the implementation and not 
the interface.

> When parent loaders do not represent greater authority than their 
> children, then perhaps this patterns isn't needed. But since it's 
> needed sometimes, I think it's best if loaders generally follow this 
> pattern.

I'm not sure what you mean by "parent" and "child" loaders. Do you mean 
package loaders / directories?

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>

_______________________________________________
e-lang mailing list
e-lang@mail.eros-os.org
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]