I agree with you. On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 6:01 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 16:46 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:38 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for discussing this in detail. I agree that strictly specifying > > > the order of effects may not be good, and that an implementor should be > > > able to use some kind of “buffered forcing”. > > > > > > > It doesn't seem right to talk about the *order* of effects. The first > > effect should happen first, the second effect second, and so on. What > > should be unspecified is *how many* effects happen on each iteration. > > At first I disagreed, and now I think I agree. But I’m not sure whether > this is the right way to explain what, exactly, is unspecified. The > author of (lseq-for-each proc seq), for example, might like to know > whether proc will be invoked as soon as its argument is available > or after several more values are forced. Knowing the number of effects > that occur on each step is enough to answer this question, but it > takes a little thought to see how. > > If any change is to be made, it may be best to say that the number of > lseq elements forced between invocations of proc is unspecified. > > -- > Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> >
