Matthias, Is there a reason to use streams in lazy racket? Won't lists give me the same behaviour?
> (define (foo) (display "called\n") '()) > (cons 1 (foo)) '(1 . #<promise:temp9>) I though that the whole point of streams was to provide lazy lists in a strict language. Eugene On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Consider using Lazy Racket. -- Matthias > > > > On Mar 5, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Toder wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> stream-cons from racket's standard racket/stream.rkt is implemented as >> a macro -stream-cons wrapped into a case-lambda. >> This wrapping makes it strict in both arguments, contrary to the >> traditional behaviour from SICP, srfi-40, srfi-41 etc. >> For example: >> >>> (define (foo) (display "called\n") empty-stream) >>> (stream-cons 1 (foo)) >> called >> #<sequence> >>> (require srfi/41) >>> (stream-cons 1 (foo)) >> #<stream> >> >> Is this intentional? Is there a way to get traditional lazy behaviour >> other than by implementing it with make-do-sequence or generator? >> >> Eugene >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
