On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Jim Wise wrote:
> Matthias Felleisen writes:
>
>> I have not read Bob's blog, but Bob and I arrived at this
>> conclusion at about the same time and we discussed it extensively
>> during my sabbatical at CMU in 93/94. -- I am not at all surprised
>> that one opini
Matthias Felleisen writes:
> I have not read Bob's blog, but Bob and I arrived at this
> conclusion at about the same time and we discussed it extensively
> during my sabbatical at CMU in 93/94. -- I am not at all surprised
> that one opinion reminds you of the other. -- Matthias
Interesting ba
I have not read Bob's blog, but Bob and I arrived at this
conclusion at about the same time and we discussed it extensively
during my sabbatical at CMU in 93/94. -- I am not at all surprised
that one opinion reminds you of the other. -- Matthias
On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Jim Wise wrote:
>
Matthias Felleisen writes:
> My hunch is that I forgot my meta-meta-lessons from the 1980s. Back then
> the standard argument for lazy programming was that 'the regular lambda
> calculus is uniform and easy to use and you never have to think about
> when substitution works'. [This argument appli
[re-directed to Dev]
On Dec 16, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> If I had it all to do over again, I'd probably get rid of multiple
> values and just have tuples. The compiler and run-time system would
> cooperate to match tuple results with tuple receives to avoid
> allocation much of
5 matches
Mail list logo
