Better still, remove fold-right entirely, since laziness isn't part of the spec (specifically infinite lists).
2017-01-12 18:10 GMT+01:00 W.S. Hager <[email protected]>: > 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 > -- W.S. Hager Lagua Web Solutions http://lagua.nl
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
