From: Tyler Close <>
Replying To: Mark Miller <>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:31:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [e-lang] "Capability Myths Demolished" (was: Software security workshop)

On Wednesday 04 December 2002 14:56, Mark Miller wrote:
> At 10:14 AM 12/4/2002 Wednesday, Tyler Close wrote:
> >The Dennis and Van Horn system supported protected procedures that
> >look very much to me like E objects. A sender could only invoke a
> >protected procedure by indexing a capability in its C-list. The
> >call was also parameterized with a single capability parameter,
> >also obtained by indexing the caller's C-list.
> >
> >Given this mechanism, you can implement all the functionality of
> >the Granovetter diagram.  How can you draw a line between the
> >Dennis and Van Horn system and E?
> I hadn't remembered this feature of Dennis and Van Horn. Perhaps it was
> only that their presentation was memory oriented rather than invocation
> oriented, so I forgot the latter part. But if it was a difference only of
> presentation, then I withdraw my point. I just don't remember this paper
> well enough.

I took this information from the Henry M. Levy book on

Are you just moving the line somewhere else or are you erasing the
line? Are you still proposing a name change for capabilities? markm 

The Levy book credits the Dennis and Van Horn system with the
coining of the term "capability".  This means full Granovetter
functionality has been part of the term "capability" since the
start. This makes it difficult to distinguish contemporary systems
via an extension name. markm

e-lang mailing list