Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: what is the required behavior of 'lazy'?

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> wrote:
> 6 hours ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>>
>> (where lazy has been renamed delay-force).
>
> `delay-force' would a bad name becuase it's an implementation
> description.  Except that in this case that description is wrong,
> making "bad name" an understatement.

This is purely subjective.

There were complaints that 'lazy' was confusing, and
put extra burden on programmers to remember when
to use delay and when to use lazy.  The name delay-force
emphasizes that it is indeed semantically identical
to the composition of delay and force, with an extra
requirement of tail-call optimization (which currently
no implementation provides for the composition but
is not theoretically impossible).

The WG voted and agreed 6:1 that delay-force was
a better name.

-- 
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports