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

I should mention that the literature on staged metaprogramming calls this "cross-stage persistence," (CSP) so I second Carl's proposal of cross-phase.
 -Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu>
To: Norman Gray <norman at astro.gla.ac.uk>
Cc: dev Developers <dev at racket-lang.org>
Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:43:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #26372: master branch updated

First of all, thanks very much, Matthew, for implementing this!  This looks
like a great feature to me.  I have often been frustrated that users' data
structures aren't easy to quote or to manipulate in macros in the same way
as pairs or vectors; this should go a long way to improving the situation.

Second, for a name, how about some variation of "phase-global" or
"cross-phase"?

An amusing but probably not too informative name: "one-phase-fits-all".  ;)

Carl Eastlund

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Norman Gray <norman at astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> Greetings.
>
> On 2013 Feb 27, at 01:14, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think part of the problem is distinguishing "module declarations"
> > (which don't have a phase) from "module instantiations" (which are
> > normally phase-specific).
>
> If 'which don't have a phase' is the key phrase, how about:
>
> phase-neutral
> phase-independent
> unphased
> phase-exempt
>
> 'phase-invariant' prompts (to me) the question '...under what
> transformation?'; 'phase-independent', like 'phase-neutral', in contrast
> suggests that the phase isn't relevant to them.
>
> Norman
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >>>
> > _________________________
> >  Racket Developers list:
> >  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
> --
> Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>
>
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>