On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Benjamin Franksen writes: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Bryce Bockman writes: > >> > >> Don't confuse categories please. SICP doesn't say how to make a lazy > >> variant of Scheme. Applicative protocol is not normal protocol, the > >> reduction is, as it is. > > > > We may have a different copy of SICP, but in mine (2nd edition) there is > > Chapter 4.2 "Variantions on a Scheme -- Lazy Evaluation" and in > > particular 4.2.2 "An Interpreter with Lazy Evaluation". > > Absolutely right, and BTW., I had > http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-27.html#%_sec_4.2 > on the screen when I wrote what I wrote. Michael Vanier explained well > my aim (better than myself, an optional sad smiley here...). > > I wanted just to say that a lazy interpreter etc., *is not Scheme*. Well, > AS say: "In this section we will implement a normal-order language that is > the same as Scheme except that compound procedures are non-strict in each > argument. Primitive procedures will still be strict." We read, and we see > that the lazy layer is a superficial one, with 'forcing' implemented at > the surface, so for me it was enough to remark that I consider it to be > a different language.
Ok, I think I see now what you mean. Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
