This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: "environment" unsuitable name for top-level environment
- To: Keith Wright <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: "environment" unsuitable name for top-level environment
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <email@example.com>
- Date: 18 Aug 1999 11:33:24 +0200
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com
- References: <E11GpUjfirstname.lastname@example.org> <199908180235.WAA00308@kwright.tiac.net>
Keith Wright <email@example.com> writes:
> Maybe I don't really understand the objection here; it seems like
> saying we can't call reals 'numbers' because the term is already
> used for integers.
Just to be sure of the analogy here: top-level environments can be
regarded a special case of a lexical environment, so top-level
environments are integers and lexical environments reals, right?
(At least this is the case in most implementations. The top-level
environment is the environment inside a module but outside all
regions contained in the module.)
Since there's no use in having a three-level hierarchy
(integer-real-number) the name 'environment' corresponds to 'real'.
Now, the problem is that we can't call what *really* is a real 'real'
because the integers are called 'real's *instead of* 'integer's
(or: we can't call [lexical] environments 'environments' since the
top-level environments are called 'environments' instead of 'top-level