Alaric B. Williams
Wed, 21 May 1997 06:34:06 +0000
> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:46:53 +1000
> From: Chris Bitmead uid <firstname.lastname@example.org> (x22068)
> Subject: Re: pathnames
> To: email@example.com
> Reply-to: Chris.Bitmead@alcatel.com.au
> >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!"
> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html