On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:39 PM, wren ng thornton <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed. This is often advocated as one of the reasons for > lazy-by-default in Haskell. Laziness allows you to implement most > control structures directly in the language, rather than having them as > built-ins: short-circuiting boolean ops, if-then-else, do-while,...
i'm probably confused. couldn't you also do that if you instead had a way to mark something as lazy? short-circuiting boolean ops in scheme/lisp don't have to be "built-ins", can be macros, no? they are in the Clojure sources, anyway. (just thinking of arguments i've heard for /not/ having laziness be the default - mainly that it can be a stretch for mere humans to follow the performance implications.) so your 2nd sentence doesn't seem to bolster the 1st iiuc. sincerely. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
