On 8 April 2013 07:13, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 April 2013 00:49, Chris K. Jester-Young <cky...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've attached record type printers for SRFI 45 promises and SRFI 41 >> streams. I've tried to make promise-visit more self-documenting with >> the use of keyword arguments; let me know if you think that's an >> improvement! >> >> Also as discussed with Mark H Weaver, I've currently implemented the >> format for promises as #<promise => ...> for unevaluated promises, and >> #<promise = ...> for evaluated ones. Hopefully this is is easy to read >> and will clearly distinguish between the two types, and still look >> different from core promises too.
To distinguish from core promises a more explicit tag is preferable, like srfi-69 uses: #<srfi-45:promise OBJ-ADDR> Regards
