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