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."

Reply via email to