[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Some comments after reading the r7rs public draft

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:52 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> It seems clear that having `delay` spawn a background thread is
> consistent
> with the R5RS/R7RS definition of `delay`, so I have added the
> following
> editorial remark: 

This is not clear to me.  What about the dynamic extent in which the
thunk is evaluated? This affects parameters. Additionally, there is no
gain to forking a thread at force time, because force must wait for the
return any ways.

This is better done with the clearer and already existing futures
feature that some implementation have.

Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@x | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Scheme-reports mailing list