Alexander Schmolck wrote: > No. The example was supposed to demonstrate what lazy evaluation > (which isn't limited to sequences BTW) is about to someone with > a background in J but not functional programming.
Mmm... but why was that the issue in the first place? The original question was What are the problems with ? for functional programming, other than the definitional one? Whatever functional programming is, it would be poorer if it can not accommodate ? And introducing the concept of lazy evaluation to the discussion without addressing that point seems to miss the point. Note: it's entirely possible to define ? to work in a lazy functional fashion. This is a syntactic issue. This disconnect is exaggerated by the fact that you claimed a number of efficiency advantages for lazy evaluation, without mentioning any of the associated costs. [compile time costs or run time costs, as well as development time costs (when the programmer expects laziness to kick in and it does not).] -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
