Earlier today, Keiko Nakata wrote:
> > > It looks clever.
> >
> > I'm not sure that it's a good term -- you've seen the comment above
> > it?
>
> Sure. I read the source, papers by R. Jones and Wadler.
> I thought you have measurement.
I don't have any concrete measurements. The implementation is as fast
as I could make it, but it's still pretty slow -- for example, when
you compare it with a naive implementation. Most of the hit is due to
doing the right thing wrt exceptions: when there's an exception when a
promise is forced, the exception is stored as the "value" and will be
re-raised when forced again. For example, if you do this:
(define a (delay (/ (random 2))))
(force a)
and get an error, you should get an error for future forces too.
> It's simple and works, which is nice; isn't it?
It's very fragile, and when it breaks it's very hard to find out how
to fix it.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
