Yes! (So I assume a parallel cond could be included in the report). Shiro Kawai escribió: > Just a comment on concurrent evaluation of test exprs in cond: > > From: Antonio Vieiro <[email protected]> > Subject: [r6rs-discuss] Implicit parallel Scheme (was Re: Parallel-Scheme > [was: Thoughts on Scheme's Future]) > Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:16:19 +0200 > >> (That doesn't allow concurrent evaluation of test expressions) >> >> That could be rephrased as: >> >> "A cond expression is evaluated by evaluating the test expressions in >> some unspecified order. For the first test expression that evaluates to >> true, the remaining..." >> >> (Or something similar, that allows concurrent evaluation of test >> expressions, but that imposes that the first one evaluating to true, if >> any, is the one selected for the remaining stuff). > > Doesn't that prohibit typical idioms in which the tests assume > precedent tests are not satisfied? For example, the following > code assumes when (odd? x) is evaluated x is an integer. If we > allow concurrent evaluation, (odd? x) may signals an error. > > (cond > [(not (integer? x)) ...] > [(odd? x) ...]) > > --shiro > > >
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
