<div dir="ltr"><div><div>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.<br>
<br></div>Second, for a name, how about some variation of "phase-global" or "cross-phase"?<br><br></div>An amusing but probably not too informative name: "one-phase-fits-all". ;)<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br clear="all"><div>Carl Eastlund</div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Norman Gray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:norman@astro.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank">norman@astro.gla.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Greetings.<br>
<div><br>
On 2013 Feb 27, at 01:14, Matthew Flatt <<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu" target="_blank">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I think part of the problem is distinguishing "module declarations"<br>
> (which don't have a phase) from "module instantiations" (which are<br>
> normally phase-specific).<br>
<br>
</div>If 'which don't have a phase' is the key phrase, how about:<br>
<br>
phase-neutral<br>
phase-independent<br>
unphased<br>
phase-exempt<br>
<br>
'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.<br>
<br>
Norman<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
><br>
> I want an adjective for a declaration that describes a treatment of its<br>
> instances. "Phaseless" is bad, because no module declaration has a<br>
> phase, but "all-phase" has the same problem.<br>
><br>
> "Phase-invariant" could work, although that sounds like a property that<br>
> module declarations might have even if they're not treated specially.<br>
><br>
> How about "phase-collapsing"? That suggests more (to me) that something<br>
> special is happening.<br>
><br>
> At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:53:14 -0500, Ray Racine wrote:<br>
>> all-phase modules<br>
>> static modules<br>
>> static-phase modules<br>
>> phase-invariant modules<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Vincent St-Amour <<a href="mailto:stamourv@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">stamourv@ccs.neu.edu</a>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:01 -0500,<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:mflatt@racket-lang.org" target="_blank">mflatt@racket-lang.org</a> wrote:<br>
>>>> 899a327 Matthew Flatt <<a href="mailto:mflatt@racket-lang.org" target="_blank">mflatt@racket-lang.org</a>> 2013-02-26 14:14<br>
>>>> :<br>
>>>> | add experimental support for "phaseless" modules<br>
>>>> |<br>
>>><br>
>>> After reading the docs, I find the name "phaseless" confusing. IIUC,<br>
>>> these modules are not special because they have no phase, but rather<br>
>>> because they're the same at all phases.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Would "pan-phase", "omni-phase" or "cross-phase" be an accurate<br>
>>> description?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Vincent<br>
>>> _________________________<br>
>>> Racket Developers list:<br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br>
>>><br>
> _________________________<br>
> Racket Developers list:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><span><font color="#888888">--<br>
Norman Gray : <a href="http://nxg.me.uk" target="_blank">http://nxg.me.uk</a><br>
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
_________________________<br>
Racket Developers list:<br>
<a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>