On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote:
> Binding#bind doesn't sound right to me.  I would say either:
>   - bind a symbol to a value, or
>   - add a symbol to a binding
> but not "bind a symbol to a binding."  At least, that's what my
> language sense tells me.
> Binding#add, maybe?

Bind#bind(sym,val) as in "bind a symbol to a value, in the context of a
binding". (however i'd rather say: bind a value to a symbol ... but i'm
all backwards)

I'm proposing Binding#[]= in my RCR (#29), which I think is the most
convenient, because the principal aggregate held by a binding is its
localvariable-table. I think of #[] and #[]= as meaning "access the
principal aggregate held by an object", with "principal" as in "most
important" or "natural".

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju