[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: what is the required behavior of 'lazy'?
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
With both present, there is an easy way to remember which one to
> 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
> 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