[racket-dev] [plt] Push #26372: master branch updated

I think part of the problem is distinguishing "module declarations"
(which don't have a phase) from "module instantiations" (which are
normally phase-specific).

I want an adjective for a declaration that describes a treatment of its
instances. "Phaseless" is bad, because no module declaration has a
phase, but "all-phase" has the same problem.

"Phase-invariant" could work, although that sounds like a property that
module declarations might have even if they're not treated specially.

How about "phase-collapsing"? That suggests more (to me) that something
special is happening.

At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:53:14 -0500, Ray Racine wrote:
> all-phase modules
> static modules
> static-phase modules
> phase-invariant modules
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Vincent St-Amour <stamourv at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
> 
> > At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:01 -0500,
> > mflatt at racket-lang.org wrote:
> > > 899a327 Matthew Flatt <mflatt at racket-lang.org> 2013-02-26 14:14
> > > :
> > > | add experimental support for "phaseless" modules
> > > |
> >
> > After reading the docs, I find the name "phaseless" confusing. IIUC,
> > these modules are not special because they have no phase, but rather
> > because they're the same at all phases.
> >
> > Would "pan-phase", "omni-phase" or "cross-phase" be an accurate
> > description?
> >
> > Vincent
> > _________________________
> >   Racket Developers list:
> >   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
> >