I like guarded interfaces as the default. However... I'd like to clarify something: Both flavors of interface will be observably separate wrapper objects, that is, with distinct object ids? Mightn't it make more sense for voyeurs interfaces to report the same object id, to better conform with the point of view that they aren't wrappers, and aren't controlling permissions? If you really need a promiscuous wrapper, you could use a guarded interface with a promiscuous guard type, as you pointed out.
If we're finally on the same page regarding interfaces, wrappers, types, object id, and access control, maybe only voyeurs interfaces should be called "interface", and guarded interfaces should be called--I dunno--"wrapper"s? On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Though it's an interesting question which one should be the default. We > could try going with "interface" and "voyeurs interface"... > > I'd actually like to try the story in which guarded interfaces are the > default, because it will force us to explore the notion and its limits... _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
