[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mobile variables

Richard Beton writes:
> Adrian Lawrence wrote:

> > 1) A mobile variable is declared in the usual way but with a prefix
> >    MOBILE. This decoration informs the compiler that the
> >    variable will be MOBILE at some point and allows separate compilation
> >    of processes.
> >    Example: INITIAL MOBILE [2]INT IS [1,2] :
> Because 'mobile' variables are actually carefully-controlled shared variables,
> wouldn't it be better to use the keyword SHARED thus:
> ?

Maybe. I said as much in my first posting. It's just that when a variable is
mobile, we specifically exclude (all right, simultaneous) sharing. But
having a shared cup doesn't imply simultaneous use by two people --usually. :-)
So perhaps I am wrong.

Does this mean that you want the abbreviation

x_mobile IS MOBILE x_shared:
to be
x_mobile IS SHARED x_shared: 
to match?

If we are to have a new keyword anyway, then it seems clearest to use it
everywhere. But I don't have any very strong views on this. Anyone? 

A E Lawrence, MA., DPhil.  	adrian.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MicroProcessor Unit, 13, Banbury Road, Oxford. OX2 6NN. UK.                
Voice: (+44)-1865-273274,  Fax: (+44)-1865-273275