[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Some comments after reading the r7rs public draft
Emmanuel Medernach scripsit:
> I agree that making a promise with an immediate value could evaluate
> to that immediate instead of creating a promise.
That's where make-promise (formerly known as eager) comes in: it allows
you to return an object to your caller that is guaranteed to be a
promise. This allows promise-based APIs, where the caller knows he can
safely force the return value.
> But in general I think that a promise have to be opaque until forced
> and that it is worth to have a disjoint type for promises and to be
> able to check if an object is a promise or not.
Ticket #405 filed.
> IMHO for any other usage auto-forcing in primitives strongly sounds
> as being in the "it seems a good idea at that time" department:
> auto-forcing means that primitives have to check if something is a
> promise and forcing it in that case, adding this check add a cost and
> it has deep impact on the language semantics.
It does add a cost, but the cost is paid only by users of an
implementation (such as Kawa) that does auto-forcing. The impact
is actually quite shallow: it simply makes some functions mildly
Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan
Never in the field of human computing cowan@x
has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)
Scheme-reports mailing list