[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 40 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 40 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

To: Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?
From: Phil Bewig <pbewig@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:33:35 +0200
Cc: srfi-40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.sola.4.10.10308181609460.16772-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Andre van Tonder's message of "Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:10:29 -0400 (EDT)")
References: <Pine.sola.4.10.10308181609460.16772-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.090019 (Oort Gnus v0.19) XEmacs/21.5 (cassava, berkeley-unix)

On Monday, August 18, 2003 3:10 PM, Andre van Tonder [SMTP:andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> Are you using the definition?
> 
>   (define from0 
>      (let loop ((x 0))
>        (stream-delay
>          (stream-cons x (loop (+ x 1))))))
> 
Yes.

Phil

References:
- Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?
  - From: Andre van Tonder

Prev by Date: Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?
Next by Date: Monad for lazy evaluation
Previous by thread: Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?
Next by thread: Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread