Re: [moca] How important is restriction?

[Luis Rodrigo Gallardo <lrgallardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:38:31PM -0000, Andy Gordon wrote:
> > But on doing this I have bumped against a problem: Python is 
> > a block-structured language without variable declarations. 
> > That means that all names are local by default. (Or am I 
> > wrong here?) This is something I want to keep.
> 
> I would proceed by not identifying ambient calculus names with Python
> variables, but instead treating an ambient name as the value bound to a
> Python variable.  You'd need some kind of "gensym" or "new" operator to
> generate fresh names.  This is just like the way a variable in Java say
> has a local, lexical scope, but it may get bound at runtime to a heap
> reference that has an independent lifetime.
> 
Let me see if I understand:

By doing this, I would get a way to generate 'fresh' names, known only
to one process, that it can then communicate at will. But, if this is the
only way to generate names, there would be no way to have globaly known names.

This is actually what I meant to ask at first. How would the AC be affected
in its theoretical power if there was no 'internal' mechanism to have a
global name. What I mean about 'internal' is that I could have some ad-hoc
way to distribute such names, not by a language mechanism but by means of
some compiler specific behaviour.
  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "models for mobility" mailing list     mailto:moca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/personnel/Davide.Sangiorgi/moca.html