[erlisp-devel] name(s) for link function

[Dirk Gerrits]

ric Lavigne wrote:
> I propose that (link pid) be used to indicate that *current-process*
> be notified when process pid terminates. I imagine that this is the
> more common case. A process needs to know about an event, so it
> requests notification.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

> The other direction (reverse-link pid) would mean that
> *current-process* should send notification to process pid when
> *current-process* terminates.

In this case I would make the API
(link :to pid)
(link :from pid)
(link :to-from pid)

But I agree with Chris that there is probably no need to be able to
create an incoming link.  The process that wants to be informed of the
other's death should call LINK.

> Anyone think that these two names should be reversed? ... This may 
> seem like a trivial matter, but such things tend to be difficult to
> change (backwards compatibility issues). Let's find something that we
> will be comfortable with later.

Although I like your thinking, I want to reserve the right to change the
Erlisp API (even drastically) without regard to backwards compatibility,
at /least/ until a 0.1 release. ;)

- Dirk