From: Mark Miller <>
Replying To: Jonathan S. Shapiro <>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:19:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [e-lang] "Capability Myths Demolished" (was: Software security workshop)

At 08:14 AM 12/4/2002 Wednesday, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>One of
>the key differences in various capability system designs is whether
>C-lists are sets or maps. [...]
>Either C-list model falls under the general heading of "capability
>systems" in the existing literature.

This seems like a good excuse for a distinction. A C-lists-as-set system is 
necessarily vulnerable to confused deputy.  Lambda calculus demands 
C-lists-as-maps. If the paradigm "capability" includes C-lists-as-sets, then 
we do in fact need a new term, because the paradigm we're working in 
doesn't. So this distinction would support "lambda-capabilities" as a term. tyler

At 08:21 AM 12/4/2002 Wednesday, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>I disagree. If you are going to pick a new term, think about it as a
>problem in differentiable brand identification. This will lead
>immediately to the conclusion that performing line extension on somebody
>else's brand is a bad idea.

This line of reasoning is too far outside my expertise for me to reason 
about competently.   I simply observe that many such outside extensions of 
terms are successful.

Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain


e-lang mailing list