I think I'm with you, Carl. But I am still curious if there is someone on the other side that has a rationale.
Robby On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> Oh, another thought: I seem to recall a macro-writer rule of thumb: >> "don't use a macro just to thunkify some argument". Is that a bad >> memory on my part? Or does that not apply here somehow? >> >> (BTW, I don't really feel very negative about this; I think it is a >> good change overall.) >> >> Robby > > I've heard that guideline before and never liked it. Why not use a > macro just to thunkify some argument? Seems like a good use of a > macro to me. The purpose of "future" isn't to call a thunk later, > it's to evaluate an expression later. Thunks are just an > implementation detail, one that the proposed macro nicely abstracts > away. Ditto for pretty much every "thunkify some argument" macro I > can think of. > > --Carl > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
