On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Alaric Snell-Pym <[email protected]>wrote:
> > No, the idea is for `delay` to fork a thread and `force` to join it > (unless > > the result is already cached). > > A better implementation approach would probably be to have a pool of > low-priority "idle threads" that, when scheduled, pick pending promises > from a (priority?) queue and force them. > > I don't think it is a good idea to mix laziness, which is about delaying computation, with futures which are explicitly about parallelism. Eventually evaluating a promise in parallel invalidates the whole laziness idea: it prevents one to implement infinite streams with finite memory for instance. Cheers, -- Emmanuel
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
