On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 07:30 +0200, Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Derick Eddington
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Michele, as you've demonstrated, you don't know what you're talking
> > about. You seem determined to not learn in order to continue some pet
> > fantasy.
>
> > In implicit phasing, the phases are *implied* by where identifiers occur.
> > In
> > explicit phasing, the phases are explicitly specified. Implicit phasing
> > does not mean only that the (for --- (meta ---)) import syntax is not
> > required, it means that the phases when libraries are instantiated is
> > implied. If libraries are always instantiated regardless of the phase
> > of identifiers, it is not implicit phasing because what is implied is
> > ignored, therefore the term "implicit" is inappropriate. I should never
> > have used the term "on-demand" because what it actually is is the
> > essence of implicit phasing: instantiation phases happening when
> > identifiers imply they must.
>
> I understand this is your definition of what implicit phasing means.
> I am not sure if Aziz thinks this is the only interpretation or if
> he is willing to admit Ypsilon interpretation as acceptable
> (he said he has no copyright on the term),
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 10:44 +0300, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> On May 6, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Derick Eddington wrote:
> > I say Ypsilon is doing implicit phasing wrong.
>
> Or maybe just applying the label incorrectly for different semantics.
> Maybe Fujita took "implicit phasing" to mean: the "for" syntax is
> ignored and identifiers are the same at all levels. This partially
> (but not full) characterizes implicit phasing. But since I have not
> trademarked the term, I can't sue him for using it. :-)
> I interpreted "implicit" in a weak
> sense just meaning "there is no need for (for (meta))" whereas you
> say "no, implicit also means the phases are instantiated
> implicitly depending if the identifiers are used!", in a strong sense.
"Implicit" is only appropriate if there is something implicit. For
implicit phasing, phasing is what is implicit. Explicit phasing means
phasing is explicit, and implicit is the opposite of explicit, and both
explicit phasing and implicit phasing are about phasing, therefore what
explicit phasing makes explicit is what implicit phasing makes implicit.
It is not phasing to instantiate imports when they're not needed for a
phase. Therefore, it's neither implicit nor explicit phasing, it should
be called always instantiating every import regardless of its phase.
--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------
