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

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

Four hours ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> 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.

The attempted analogy is objectively broken.


> There were complaints that 'lazy' was confusing, and put extra
> burden on programmers to remember when to use delay and when to use
> lazy.

With both present, there is an easy way to remember which one to
choose: `lazy'.


> The name delay-force emphasizes that it is indeed semantically
> identical to the composition of delay and force, [...]

Yes, the intention is clear, and still its a description of a broken
implementation.


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

Oh, then in that case it must be better.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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