I should mention that the literature on staged metaprogramming calls this "cross-stage persistence," (CSP) so I second Carl's proposal of cross-phase. -Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> To: Norman Gray <nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk> Cc: dev Developers <dev@racket-lang.org> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:43:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #26372: master branch updated
First of all, thanks very much, Matthew, for implementing this! This looks like a great feature to me. I have often been frustrated that users' data structures aren't easy to quote or to manipulate in macros in the same way as pairs or vectors; this should go a long way to improving the situation. Second, for a name, how about some variation of "phase-global" or "cross-phase"? An amusing but probably not too informative name: "one-phase-fits-all". ;) Carl Eastlund On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Norman Gray <nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > Greetings. > > On 2013 Feb 27, at 01:14, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > I think part of the problem is distinguishing "module declarations" > > (which don't have a phase) from "module instantiations" (which are > > normally phase-specific). > > If 'which don't have a phase' is the key phrase, how about: > > phase-neutral > phase-independent > unphased > phase-exempt > > 'phase-invariant' prompts (to me) the question '...under what > transformation?'; 'phase-independent', like 'phase-neutral', in contrast > suggests that the phase isn't relevant to them. > > Norman > > > > > > I want an adjective for a declaration that describes a treatment of its > > instances. "Phaseless" is bad, because no module declaration has a > > phase, but "all-phase" has the same problem. > > > > "Phase-invariant" could work, although that sounds like a property that > > module declarations might have even if they're not treated specially. > > > > How about "phase-collapsing"? That suggests more (to me) that something > > special is happening. > > > > At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:53:14 -0500, Ray Racine wrote: > >> all-phase modules > >> static modules > >> static-phase modules > >> phase-invariant modules > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Vincent St-Amour <stamo...@ccs.neu.edu > >wrote: > >> > >>> At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:01 -0500, > >>> mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote: > >>>> 899a327 Matthew Flatt <mfl...@racket-lang.org> 2013-02-26 14:14 > >>>> : > >>>> | add experimental support for "phaseless" modules > >>>> | > >>> > >>> After reading the docs, I find the name "phaseless" confusing. IIUC, > >>> these modules are not special because they have no phase, but rather > >>> because they're the same at all phases. > >>> > >>> Would "pan-phase", "omni-phase" or "cross-phase" be an accurate > >>> description? > >>> > >>> Vincent > >>> _________________________ > >>> Racket Developers list: > >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >>> > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > -- > Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk > SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
