within an eager language.
jOS
> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org
> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Toder
> Sent: 06 March 2011 20:47
> To: Eli Barzilay
> Cc: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] stream-co
To clarify the last point. Say each seq has a method to create an
equivalent memoized seq, or return itself if memoization is not needed
(e.g. in-range). Memoized seq returns a memoizing iterator, that first
goes over previously calculated values, then starts storing newly
calculated values in seq
> Either way, it clarifies how to deal with the state. (Which is why
> I'm surprised that the point didn't come up so far.)
Right, so we have stateless seqs that are only used to create
statefull producer of their values (iterators). For and any other
iteration construct ask for iterator and use
Two minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > So you shouldn't use it at all.
>
> Eli, this remark suggests that 'stream' is mis-documented
I think that a comment at the top of the documentation is what was
missing.
> and that it should
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> So you shouldn't use it at all.
Eli, this remark suggests that 'stream' is mis-documented and that it should be
moved somewhere else for the next release, before it does more harm (a
/private/) -- Matthias
__
An hour and a half ago, Eugene Toder wrote:
> > (That's something to know to do the code splitting that Matthias
> > is talking about.)
> Going back to this, I often find that I want to use laziness as an
> interface. That is, I build a system as a collection of components,
> written in a strict la
> So you shouldn't use it at all.
I wouldn't if I saw any hints :)
> The way the lazy language works, any function that is defined outside
> of the lazy world (and is not a struct constructor) is considered
> eager, so arguments that are sent to it are forced
Yes, that's pretty clear.
> (That's
5 hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I am interested in the following question: does it make sense to
> write parts of a systems in Lazy (so that you have lists=streams and
> you naturally stay in this world) and yet by linking to the strict
> world, you still get the best of both.
Four hou
Mark,
I'm getting a similar impression. The only problem with this is that
racket/stream is available in racket by default and nothing in
documentation hints at experimental status. This confuses people who
use racket to learn scheme by working through SICP book.
Eugene
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:
You should use SRFI-41, as SRFI-40 is deprecated.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> I've had some email discussions about this with the Racket team in the
> past, so here's a quick unofficial summary of what I've learned, while
> you're waiting for a more official response:
I've had some email discussions about this with the Racket team in the
past, so here's a quick unofficial summary of what I've learned, while
you're waiting for a more official response:
racket/stream is not really a "stream library" by the typical Scheme
definition of stream. It's really a libra
I see how this can make sense, however I'm not sure how to make it
work. For example:
> (define (foo) (display "called\n") empty-stream)
> (cons 1 (foo))
'(1 . #)
> (stream-cons 1 (foo))
called
#
So stream-cons is strict even in lazy racket, perhaps because
stream-cons is defined in strict racket
On Mar 5, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Eugene Toder wrote:
> I though that the whole point of streams was to provide lazy lists in
> a strict language.
I understand.
I am interested in the following question: does it make sense to
write parts of a systems in Lazy (so that you have lists=streams
and you
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 . #)
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,
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
> t
+1,
this behaviour of stream-cons of racket/stream definitely is wrong.
Jos
> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org
> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Toder
> Sent: 05 March 2011 21:37
> To: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: [racket] stream-cons
16 matches
Mail list logo
