Luke Palmer skribis 2005-04-26 9:37 (-0600):
> sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
How does that handle
for { closure }, { closure } -> { ... }
and why? :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gaji
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-04-26 9:37 (-0600):
> > sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
>
> How does that handle
>
> for { closure }, { closure } -> { ... }
>
> and why? :)
Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
since I'm implementing s
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
> Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
> since I'm implementing statement:, not statement:.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same "is lazy" thing be
useful with "for", given this example?
Juerd
--
http://
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
> > Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
> > since I'm implementing statement:, not statement:.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same "is lazy" thing be
> useful with "for", given this ex
On 5/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, "for" doesn't need "is lazy", because it simply evaluates the
> list it is given and iterates over it. The fact that evaluating the
> list may be a no-op because of laziness is unrelated to "is lazy"
> (another hint that it's the wrong na
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > > That would be absolutely horrible.
> > Str|Int is simply the type of "Yes"|1, isn't it? That would certainly
> > make sig
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:59:59AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 16:55 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> > Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
>
> > > > That would be absolutely horrible.
>
> You all s
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>
> >David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Could we see some code that shows why this is a good idea? My initial
> >>reaction is horror; I can very easily see huge numbers
