Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 01:24 UTC)
Re: Request for review Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Mar 2026 01:32 UTC)
Re: Request for review Peter McGoron (09 Mar 2026 01:45 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (09 Mar 2026 18:52 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 22:36 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 22:59 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (09 Mar 2026 22:39 UTC)
Re: Request for review Peter McGoron (09 Mar 2026 23:22 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 23:12 UTC)
Re: Request for review Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Mar 2026 23:23 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (11 Mar 2026 21:38 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (11 Mar 2026 22:48 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (13 Mar 2026 07:50 UTC)
Re: Request for review John Cowan (13 Mar 2026 14:16 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (13 Mar 2026 15:00 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (13 Mar 2026 15:39 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (13 Mar 2026 22:43 UTC)
Re: Request for review John Cowan (14 Mar 2026 07:47 UTC)
Re: Request for review jobol (14 Mar 2026 07:54 UTC)
Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener (15 Mar 2026 23:30 UTC)

Re: Request for review Daniel Ziltener 15 Mar 2026 23:30 UTC

Yes, I'll go with `derive`. I have also added a `copy` message that
copies the list of messages/slots, but allows implementations to
properly deep-copy contents of the slots if feasible.

On 3/14/26 08:54, jobol wrote:
> Le Fri, 13 Mar 2026 23:43:17 +0100,
> Daniel Ziltener <xxxxxx@lyrion.ch> a écrit :
>
>> Other names we came up with after a short brainstorming on #chicken
>> that I'd like to suggest:
>>
>> - induce
>> - derive
>> - metastasize
>>
>> I think `derive` would be my favourite. Sounds technical enough to be
>> taken seriously, and is quite precise in its meaning.
>>
> I like 'derive'. +1