On 5/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, "for" doesn't need "is lazy", because it simply evaluates the
> list it is given and iterates over it. The fact that evaluating the
> list may be a no-op because of laziness is unrelated to "is lazy"
> (another hint that it's the wrong name).
To start off the name game:
`is deferred`? `is closure`, `is coderef`, `is sub`? `is condition`?
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
"I used to have a life, but I liked mail-reading so much better."