[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hash-table-*/default (Re: SRFI 69 update)
Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> True, but the implementation is already there for those who want
> something rigorous. :)
So long as the implementation is *normative* and not simply
*informative*, then fine. That needs to be made clear, though.
> It's just that viewed differently, (hash-table-ref) can be seen as a
> kind of control structure, similar to (and) or (if).
Careful! The logical endpoint of this kind of thought is normal-order
> Actually, to be really useful, promises should be implicitly forced.
> This would make them a "real" abstraction vehicle. But this has wide
> ramifications in the language...