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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports