[erlang-questions] Capability model?

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

One of the first proposals I ever made for Erlang was a
MODULE-PRIVATE naming system for processes.  The idea was
that the declaration
  -pidname(Name).
would set up Name as a module-private (unexported and unexportable)
single-process "registry".  At that time, virtually all the uses of
the process registry that I could find *should* have been module-private
and presumably would have been if there had been any kind of module-
private registry to use.

As far as I can see, if we're going to change anything about processes,
names should go.  We don't require numbers to have names; we don't any
longer require functions to have names; why require processes to have
names?