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

Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 69 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 69 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

To: Panu Kalliokoski <atehwa@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@xxxxxxxx>
Date: 08 Jul 2005 02:21:32 -0400
Cc: Tony Garnock-Jones <tonyg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, srfi-69@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-69@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050707122530.GB1924@humma>
References: <42CCFCAE.1050705@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050707122530.GB1924@humma>
Sender: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Panu Kalliokoski <atehwa@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I'd like to hear more opinions on this.

i'm in favor of failure-thunk.
other interfaces can build on it easily.

thi

References:
- Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
  - From: Tony Garnock-Jones
- Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
  - From: Panu Kalliokoski

Prev by Date: Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
Next by Date: Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
Previous by thread: Re: Lambda The Ultimate: use failure-thunk instead of default value?
Next by thread: Handling of default values
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread