Two annotations added to v1.2 of the report:
1. A.8 Glossary 'tape' entry now has a term-choice note (v1.2) that
documents:
(a) The rename rationale: 'tape' fits the sequential data-flow use
case (Lottes tape-drive metaphor) better than 'arena' (which
implies bulk allocation).
(b) Explicit reservation of 'arena' for a future, separate concept
(NOT a synonym for tape). The two would compose:
tape { arena { ... } } is a pipeline stage that uses an
arena-backed buffer.
(c) The intended semantic split:
- tape { } = sequential data flow (pre-scatter, source-as-you-go)
- arena { } (FUTURE) = bulk memory allocation (bulk-allocate,
bulk-free, host decides lifetime)
2. A.7.9 New Open Question 9 added: 'Future reservation of arena { }
for a separate concept'. Documents:
- Background: the v1.2 rename was not a synonym swap; 'arena' is
reserved for a different, future concept.
- Proposed split with a comparison table (semantic, implementation,
tier fit, examples).
- Composition: tape { arena { ... } } is valid and meaningful.
- Trade-offs: pro/con of split vs. unify; recommendation is split.
- Concrete next step for the follow-up B track: define the arena
grammar rule, allocation strategy, and 2-3 example uses.
These annotations close the loop on the term-choice discussion. The
follow-up B track (interpreter prototype) can now implement the
arena { } block without re-litigating the naming.
ed
7105f75756