On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > 6 hours ago, Alex Shinn wrote: >> >> (where lazy has been renamed delay-force). > > `delay-force' would a bad name becuase it's an implementation > description. Except that in this case that description is wrong, > making "bad name" an understatement.
This is purely subjective. There were complaints that 'lazy' was confusing, and put extra burden on programmers to remember when to use delay and when to use lazy. The name delay-force emphasizes that it is indeed semantically identical to the composition of delay and force, with an extra requirement of tail-call optimization (which currently no implementation provides for the composition but is not theoretically impossible). The WG voted and agreed 6:1 that delay-force was a better name. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
