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

Re: Much simpler leak-free implementation possible?

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