> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug
5 04:36:31 2000
> Received: from ALPHA8.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU (alpha8.cc.monash.edu.au [130.194.1.8])
> by indy05.csse.monash.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA20410
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:36:31 +1000 (EST)
> Received: from tmtowtdi.perl.org ([209.85.3.25])
> by vaxh.cc.monash.edu.au (PMDF V5.2-31 #29714)
> with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:36:28 +1000
> Received: (qmail 11194 invoked by uid 508); Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:36:24 +0000
> Received: (qmail 11182 invoked from network); Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:36:23 +0000
> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:35:55 +0300
> From: Ariel Scolnicov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy) lists
> In-reply-to: Perl6 RFC Librarian's message of "4 Aug 2000 15:00:16 -0000"
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Compugen, Ltd.
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Precedence: bulk
> Delivered-to: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald)
> Lines: 57
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Authentication-warning: selena.compugen.co.il: ariels set sender to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > This RFC proposes that the right operand of a C<..> operator
> > may be omitted in a list context, producing a lazily evaluated
> > semi-finite list. It is further proposed that operations on
> > such lists also be carried out lazily.
>
> This would be nice, but I think should be folded into something more
> general, like tieable first-class iterators. I'm still trying to pull
> my thoughts together on this one, but lazy lists could be a special
> case of iterators.
I have an RFC coming on that :-)
Damian
