Is the question: is stream-cons a macro or a function? If it is a function, the answer has to be diverge. I think it being a macro is a little weird, but it being a function and the answer not being 1 is non-streamy.
Jay 2011/3/17 Robby Findler <[email protected]>: > Matthew wrote "Streams include lists and lazy lists as produced by > `stream-cons' > (i.e., the usual one instead of the one currently exported by > `racket/stream')." > > so I think the answer is 1. > > Robby > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> >>> At Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:34:17 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >>>> 1. I think we should stay away from 'stream' here. >>>> If Racket had grown out of the Unix tradition, I'd >>>> be fine with it. But we partially grew out the >>>> functional community, and they use 'stream' for >>>> a narrower concept. >>> >>> Unless I'm confused, the proposal is to use "stream" in the >>> functional-programming sense, not in the Unix sense. >> >> >> Perhaps the misunderstanding is on my side but that's easy to resolve. >> >> What does >> >> (stream-first (stream-cons 1 (infinite-loop))) >> >> produce? >> >> -- Matthias >> >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >> > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
