9 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Interesting point. With types, this issue just goes away.
>
> (No matter what, I argue that Lazy should be totally compatible in
> contracts/types/argument order with Racket. Nothing else makes
> sense.)
* I take this point as a reason that static types are even more
desirable in a lazy language than in a strict one.
* But other than that, there's not much to do -- you don't want
complete compatibility, since then you'd lose the laziness...
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
