Adrian Howard wrote: > > On 15 Jun 2004, at 20:42, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > [snip] > > However, I don't think that's the best name, as the term tends to > > be used in the context of (pseudo-) parallel execution, > > particularly in reference to threads. > [snip] > > That's what I thought too :-) > > From the module name I was thinking threads / coroutines / > continuations not partial application. > > Sub::PartialApplication, Sub::Partial maybe?
Partial application is only part of the story - defered (or lazy) evaluation the other one. > (I'm not disputing that the term 'suspension' is used in the context of > thunks and partial application - just that it's more commonly used in > other areas :-) It seems that there are no objections against 'Suspension' (or 'Thunk') and the more I search for alternatives the more I'm convinced by these terms. Obviously, the Sub:: prefix doesn't provide unambiguous context information. (If I'd written a thread related module, I guess, there would be no discussion about Thread::Suspension.) How about another prefix (avoiding a new top level)? E.g.: Language::Functional::Suspension or Function::Suspension <http://search.cpan.org/search?query=Function&mode=module> <http://search.cpan.org/search?query=Language%3A%3AFunctional&mode=module> Steffen
