On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > The phrase "call-by-value is a reduction strategy" has no meaning per se but > is a left over from the time when people hadn't figured out the above (pre > 1070). >
I apologize for spreading this nonsense. Is it the phrase "reduction strategy" that's the problem? In the paper you cited, you refer to "evaluation strategies" and "binding strategies" and list call-by-value (eager) and call-by-name (delayed) as examples of the former. Is the problem with "reduction strategy" that it properly refers to rules for reducing redexes in a lambda calculus (and not parameter-passing in a programming language)? Or is it just nonsense tout court? ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
