[erlang-questions] If you could rename ports, what would you call them?

[Tony Arcieri]

As I'm building a language which is layered on top of Erlang itself, would
it make sense to implement TCP sockets as Pids which point to a proxy
process that actually talks to the socket or ETS table, relegating ports to
the internal implementation?

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:

> Pids
>
> There shouldn't be ports in the language at all (sorry) - ports should
> in all circumstances
> behave and be indistinguishable from Pids.  open_port(...) should
> return a Pid and not a port.
>
> We should reduce the number of concepts in the langauge not increase
> them - all in the
> name of conceptual integrity.
>
> /Joe
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> > I'm working on Reia, a Ruby-like language for the Erlang VM. Reia is an
> > everything-is-an-object language, and the Erlang core types are all
> wrapped
> > as objects.
> >
> > As part of this process I've wrapped ports. However, in my opinion port
> is a
> > confusing name, particularly when dealing with a TCP port (in the Erlang
> > sense) which represents a connection to a particular TCP port (in the TCP
> > sense).
> >
> > Because of this sort of ambiguity, I'd like to rename ports. But what's a
> > good replacement name? Some of the ones I've considered: SysPort, IOPort,
> > Channel.
> >
> > What would you call ports if you had the opportunity to rename them?
> >
> > --
> > Tony Arcieri
> > Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
> >
>



-- 
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand