Discord Keen#4469 recommends an interesting idea - the ability to set (and implicitly therefore also to change or to remove) property defaults after the machine has been created.
I need to think this over some. It's not entirely clear that there's a correctness problem? This would be by design ostensibly.
A machine implementor would need the ability to refute this. Or, maybe to permit this explicitly? I guess the real issue is the default default behavior, ba-dum tiss. The discussion about default privacy informing members in c++ is of consideration here.
Alternately, the machine implementor could just set the default default, which would make porting easier, suggesting that in turn there is actually a default default default - boo; hiss. A tomato perhaps?
Yet, once less stupidly named, this seems likely the way forwards.
Default default is to default to default default default, which is to dis-permit changes in general unless explicitly permitted. However default default may be defaulted to permit, meaning there also needs to be an explicit dis-permit structure.
Wheeze.
In general, there's also the question of whether permission to change is permission to create or remove; indeed,
Is this related to a problem? If so, what?
Dunno; opening this by proxy from Discord.
Describe the solution you'd like
machine attribute: mutable_prop_defaults=[true|false|undefined is false];
changeability (all three mutually exclusive)
explicit permission (when mutable false): property foo default bar editable;
explicit permission to create and remove: property foo default bar removable;
explicit dis-permission (when mutable true): property foo default bar constant;
So what's the feature?
Discord
Keen#4469recommends an interesting idea - the ability to set (and implicitly therefore also to change or to remove) property defaults after the machine has been created.I need to think this over some. It's not entirely clear that there's a correctness problem? This would be by design ostensibly.
A machine implementor would need the ability to refute this. Or, maybe to permit this explicitly? I guess the real issue is the default default behavior, ba-dum tiss. The discussion about default privacy informing members in c++ is of consideration here.
Alternately, the machine implementor could just set the default default, which would make porting easier, suggesting that in turn there is actually a default default default - boo; hiss. A tomato perhaps?
Yet, once less stupidly named, this seems likely the way forwards.
Default default is to default to default default default, which is to dis-permit changes in general unless explicitly permitted. However default default may be defaulted to permit, meaning there also needs to be an explicit dis-permit structure.
Wheeze.
In general, there's also the question of whether permission to change is permission to create or remove; indeed,
Is this related to a problem? If so, what?
Dunno; opening this by proxy from Discord.
Describe the solution you'd like
mutable_prop_defaults=[true|false|undefined is false];property foo default bar editable;property foo default bar removable;property foo default bar constant;Describe alternatives you've considered
None, really.
Additional context as you see fit
No