Juerd writes:
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-04-26 9:37 (-0600):
sub statement:while (cond is lazy, block) {
How does that handle
for { closure }, { closure } - { ... }
and why? :)
Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
since I'm implementing
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
since I'm implementing statement:while, not statement:for.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same is lazy thing be
useful with for, given this example?
Juerd
--
Juerd writes:
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
since I'm implementing statement:while, not statement:for.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same is lazy thing be
useful with for, given this
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
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
That would be absolutely horrible.
Str|Int is simply the type of Yes|1, isn't it? That would certainly
make signature
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:59:59AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
That would be absolutely horrible.
You all seem to have
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we see some code that shows why this is a good idea? My initial
reaction is horror; I can very easily see huge numbers of subtle,
