Implicit context access

[Lee Salzman]

I vote for "here". Changing the semantics of () in different situations 
is too muddy, so
I'd rather have it consistently return Nil everywhere.


Brian Rice wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I realized we lack a way to generically refer to the implicit context, 
> used for implicit-context message sends, and have a couple of ideas 
> about that.
>
> Motivation: This would be helpful because we often want to define 
> utility methods on a namespace, but we also have the &in: optional 
> keyword for load: which should in principle allow us to load any code 
> as though any other namespace were the lobby, but we have to hardcode 
> lobby references.
>
> My initial idea was that in the context of method definitions, "_@() 
> foo []." for example dispatches to Nil, but I had thought that maybe 
> the surrounding namespace would be a better candidate.
>
> After further thought, this is really a special case and should not 
> muddy the grammar of Slate too much. So, I'd prefer if we had a simple 
> selector that worked anywhere, like thisContext (which seems to cause 
> parse errors right now - I'll look into that) but more about accessing 
> the namespace object than an activation.
>
> "thisNamespace" seems initially pretty good, but maybe there are 
> better suggestions. Any ideas?
>
> -- 
> Brian T. Rice
> LOGOS Research and Development
> http://tunes.org/~water/
>
>