Can we please agree to add a footnote to the fold-right example that says something along the lines of "this example algorithm may be optimized using lazy evaluation in the interpreter"? I don't see how that is biasing the spec toward a specific implementation...
2017-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Michael Kay <[email protected]>: > > > > Agreed, but that wasn't my point. You may have the opinion that it > wasn't important, but I'm curious to know where anything tangible on > laziness is mentioned. > > It isn't - deliberately. We leave "quality of implementation" issues > entirely to the implementor. There are many implementation techniques > available, including ones that may not have been invented yet, and there > are different trade-offs between time and memory, and the spec quite > deliberately doesn't get involved in such matters. The spec tells you what > result to expect, it doesn't tell you when to expect it. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > > > > As you say, not having any won't be very efficient, so you may as well > be explicit about it, right? I don't really understand why it's preferable > to have a syntax without an implementation, and I simply pointed out that > in the case of the fold-right example that becomes slightly odd... > > -- W.S. Hager Lagua Web Solutions http://lagua.nl
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
