Re: Unified name properties

[Keisuke Nishida]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> What is a name of an object anyway?  If a name of an object is determined
> by defining that object, we could simply go the other way around and scan
> all top-level environments for bindings to the object and thus avoid the
> need for a name property completely.  This would probably be the best
> solution, since it adds no overhead at all, neither memory nor performance
> wise.  And, the functions to scan the environments can easily be put into
> a module.
> 
> This way, finding the names of an object is somewhat time consuming, but
> for debugging this should be allright (maybe with caching).  What this
> wouldn't solve is the problem of objects that have no binding in any
> environment.

Right, right...  Probably that is the right way to go.  So what about
adding the following procedures?

- Procedure: binding-name OBJ ENV
  Find the binding of OBJ in ENV and return its name (associated symbol).

- Procedure: binding-name-list OBJ ENV
  Like `binding-name' but return a list of all names.

or

- Procedure: environment-find-name ENV OBJ
  Find the binding of OBJ in ENV and return its name (associated symbol).

- Procedure: environment-find-name-list OBJ ENV
  Like `environment-find-name' but return a list of all names.

-- Kei