Alaric B. Williams
Wed, 21 May 1997 06:34:06 +0000

> Date:          Tue, 20 May 1997 09:46:53 +1000
> From:          Chris Bitmead uid <> (x22068)
> Subject:       Re: pathnames
> To:  
> Reply-to:
> >That's why I'd refer to a container object, and then open it with a version
> >ID; either a fixed functional reference or a "just give me the latest, dammit!"
> >code.
> Can you imagine how tedious this would be?


> Except that it wouldn't work, because you might have a pointer to cons
> cell v4 which points to cons cell v2 which points to cons cell v8,
> none of which are the latest version. Therefore every object reference
> in your system would have to have two components... a pointer to the
> container object and a version id. Are you sure you want to go down
> the road of having a language where every reference is made of two
> parts, and isn't really a direct reference, but is an indirect
> reference through some container object?

I sense a deep misunderstanding!

We wouldn't individually name each and every cons cell, now, would we?
There wouldn't be much point in /that/! We would only name objects
that are high-enough level to warrant a unique name.

A "name" is a reference in the persistent "hierachy" of names that act
like a filesystem. A "name" amy refer to a set of versions of an object.

We name documents and pictures and applications. We don't name each and
every cons cell :-)

Alaric B. Williams (

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---

Plain HTML:

Fancy HTML: