On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Abhijeet More <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think so. The leak described in SRFI-45 is due to a naive > implementation of stream-filter on SICP-like streams (odd or even). > SRFI-45 describes a way to implement streams so that the leak does not > occur with the naive implementation of stream-filter. [snip]
Now that I think about it though - it may be worth investigating whether the stream-for-each implementation causes a similar ever-growing sequence of pending-promises. I'll see if this is the case. The reason I feel strongly that this is not the problem is that the same implementation (including cons-stream) does *not* cause a leak with PLT Scheme/racket. Thanks Abhijeet
