Re: [TCLCORE] Cloverfield references (was Re: Variable access)

[Neil M. <nem@Cs.Nott.AC.UK>]

On 15 May 2008, at 22:26, Frédéric Bonnet wrote:
> Neil Madden wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was going to reply at length again, but I'd just be repeating the
>> same points. My feeling is that a more fruitful discussion could be
>> had with a concrete reference implementation to play with. I realise
>> that may not be your immediate focus, so until then, I wish you the
>> best with the effort.
>
> Thank you! I'll try to do my best to come up with a (probably Tcl- 
> based)
> mock implementation for experimentation purpose.
>
> BTW, are you happy with the proposed syntax, besides agreeing or  
> not on
> the whole concept of references? I.e.:
>
>   $var  : regular value substitution
>   $&var : strong reference (early bound)
>   $@var : weak reference (late bound on access), semantically  
> identical
>           to var name.
>
> After all, that was the point of the original message ;-)

I have no particular problem with the proposed syntax. Whatever you  
choose, somebody will dislike it, but I don't think it's that  
important (it is only syntax). I managed to get used to {expand}  
(while it existed), despite finding it hideous at first -- because it  
was just so useful. People even manage to get used to Perl, legend  
has it ;^)

Neil
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.