[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] The error of the number of make-promise's arguments
- To: Wataru Nakanishi <stibear1996@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] The error of the number of make-promise's arguments
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:11:04 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAPztEvgOEZwMQmFn47hX9hwa_rVWw_zhyeZwRJUjDDE8Ofbfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <CAPztEvgOEZwMQmFn47hX9hwa_rVWw_zhyeZwRJUjDDE8Ofbemail@example.com>
Wataru Nakanishi scripsit:
> In 4.2.5. Delayed evaluation, p.19, it's written
> > (make-promise obj) lazy library procedure
> but in 7.3. Derived expression types, p.71,
> > (make-promise #f (lambda () <expression>))
> > (define make-promise > (lambda (done? proc) > (list (cons done? proc))))
> Which definition is true?
You'll note that the implementation in 7.3 doesn't claim to be an
implementation of `make-promise`. It was written before `make-promise`
was added to the standard, and happens to use the same name.
Hopefully someone will provide a more comprehensive implementation of
the lazy library that can be dropped into 7.3.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
You let them out again, Old Man Willow!
What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking!
Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep!
Bombadil is talking.
Scheme-reports mailing list