On Jul 17, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Adolfo Pérez Álvarez wrote: >> with `delay' or `lazy' and compare with the naive implementation. >> > > I see now: the naïve versions aren't correct at all in the presence of > errors. But if the delayed expression had no side effects (and we > ignore multiple return values) both approaches would be equivalent, am > I right?
Yes, but the "if"s should be spelled in HUGE font. We might be able to do better with a 'purity' analysis and with a typed version of lazy racket where you combine purity analysis with type annotations. BUT this affects modular interfaces if you want to be precise enough and we'd have to explore in practice how well this works. For that we need people who want to (have) build(t) real things in lazy flavors of Racket. > Is this the main issue that keeps Lazy Racket in "experimental" state? > Or are there other known limitations? I don't think so but I will let Eli respond. -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
