Re: [q-lang-users] RFC: Conditional syntax

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> Do you mean "lazy" as in "deferred+memoizing" or just "deferred"? If 
> it's the former, then you're right (but streams, by default, aren't 
> memoizing in Q either). If it's the latter then you're wrong because the 
> guards/patterns and the corresponding values need to be deferred until 
> they are looked at. The tails of the clause sequence don't have to be 
> deferred, with that I agree.

It was the last point that I had in mind.

> Unfortunately, I got into the habit of using "lazy" synonymous with just 
> "special" or "call by name", whereas most of the FP community will 
> reserve "lazy" for "deferred+memoizing" a.k.a. "call by need" (which I'd 
> call "fully lazy"). Maybe that's the source of the confusion.

Probably yes.

-- 
John Cowan   co...@cc...    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley