I'm confused. On comp.lang.scheme you proposed introducing FEXPRs into the language, but you describe them as a call-by-name mechanism.
Traditionally, a FEXPR is a first-class macro. When applied, the source code of the arguments is passed in. A call-by-name procedure, on the other hand, would take its arguments as thunks (like Algol 60!). Call-by-need is a variation where the value is memoized if it is ever forced (like Haskell does). So which is it that you are proposing? On 5/28/07, Joe Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So am I right in assuming that you were thinking of FEXPRs in the > general case rather than the way SCM uses the term? > > On 5/27/07, Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas Lord wrote: > > > In the *general case* you can't expand fexpr-style macros at > > > run-time however > > > > ur... that's "until" run-time, not "at," of course. > > > > -t > > > > > > > -- > ~jrm > -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
