SRFI 69 update David Van Horn (30 Aug 2005 20:56 UTC)
Re: SRFI 69 update Tony Garnock-Jones (30 Aug 2005 23:19 UTC)
hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Panu Kalliokoski (31 Aug 2005 07:56 UTC)
Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Tony Garnock-Jones (31 Aug 2005 08:36 UTC)
Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Panu Kalliokoski (31 Aug 2005 12:44 UTC)
Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Tony Garnock-Jones (31 Aug 2005 19:30 UTC)
Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Panu Kalliokoski (01 Sep 2005 05:49 UTC)

Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update) Tony Garnock-Jones 31 Aug 2005 19:30 UTC

Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> True, but the implementation is already there for those who want
> something rigorous. :)

So long as the implementation is *normative* and not simply
*informative*, then fine. That needs to be made clear, though.

> It's just that viewed differently, (hash-table-ref) can be seen as a
> kind of control structure, similar to (and) or (if).

Careful! The logical endpoint of this kind of thought is normal-order
evaluation... :)

> Actually, to be really useful, promises should be implicitly forced.
> This would make them a "real" abstraction vehicle.  But this has wide
> ramifications in the language...

Indeed.

Tony