> On 27 Apr 2016, at 17:10, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 27 Apr 2016, at 15:26, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Diction Note: Reified X means X wasn't real (in some sense) until now. As >>> in non-reified types, which are not real at runtime because the static >>> compiler discarded them. >>> >> >> I suggested reified because i thought it fit with the notion of making >> something abstract more concrete, but perhaps this just confuses matters? > > It's the real name, but since it already exists (because that's how it is > stored) it isn't really reified, it's just revealed. > > This API uses the term "real name" for an almost identical phenomenon (target > of a sym-link in a file system): > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/file/Path.html#toRealPath-java.nio.file.LinkOption...- > > In a versioned jar, the logical names are sometimes mapped to other names > under which the elements are actually stored. > Thus, they behave like sym-links. (But with a bit of control context thrown > in, the active version.) >
Yes, they behave like sym links in a virtual overlay (with a version) but there is no directly explicit information encoded in the zip file to express those links. > On old-fashioned file systems with real version numbers, the Common Lisp > function TRUENAME does exactly what you are trying to do here. > > http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/simon/Gcl/gcl_1141.html > Touche, i should know better than to spar with you on language, and i know when i am beat when you play the Lisp card :-) > (And in some way, we are sliding down the slope toward re-inventing those > file systems, aren't we?) > > The older pre-nio API for File calls it "getCanonicalPath", but I think "true > name" is better than > "canonical name", since "canonical" means "follows the rules", rather than > what we need in this case, > which is "where it really is stored". > > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/io/File.html#getCanonicalPath-- > >> >>> In this case it appears you are simply exposing a translated name, not >>> making it real for the first time. >>> >>> If this is true, I think you want to say "true name" or "real name" or >>> "translated name", not "reified name”. >> >> or “versioned name" would work for me. > > I'm just whinging about the term "reified" which doesn't seem to work, > logically. > > "Versioned name" would work for me too. But "true name" has the two good > precedents cited above. Agreed. Paul.
