On 5/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, "for" doesn't need "is lazy", because it simply evaluates the > list it is given and iterates over it. The fact that evaluating the > list may be a no-op because of laziness is unrelated to "is lazy" > (another hint that it's the wrong name).
To start off the name game: `is deferred`? `is closure`, `is coderef`, `is sub`? `is condition`? -- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perl and Parrot hacker "I used to have a life, but I liked mail-reading so much better."
