From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-10-21T22:37:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Cut-based AOP


Eric Mahurin wrote:
> One more thing.  This RCR introduces a new reserved word to the
> language: "cut".  This will break any code already using "cut"
> as a variable or method name (and calling it with no receiver).
>  An additional reserved word should not be introduced to the
> language unless you really need it.

Yes it does introduce the keyword cut. We have examined source and
detmined 'cut' is not used except in one place, a method in Tk. We gave
this careful consideration, weighed our opitons, consider alternate
names, and so. In the end we felt the succinctness of the word, its
relation to term cross-cutting and of course what it provides,
outweighed the sacrifice of this one use.

> So far, you haven't
> demonstrated that a "cut" really provides anything else useful
> over what you could do with the #preclude part of your RCR.
> #preclude would just be another method so it shouldn't cause
> compatibility issues like "cut".

That is a very blanket statement. And not correct. Both Peter and I
have given very good reasons to this effect (and we have resson to
suspect there are more). You may not agree with our reasons, but it
would be preferable if you addressed our points directly rather then
make such a broad claim. The problem I have with your take is that is
based essentially on the "look" of defining a cut. Peter and I are
considering it from a deeper perspective of funtionality, much of which
can be quite subtle.

T.