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

Re: order of evaluation

To: srfi-86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: order of evaluation
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:58:46 +0200
Delivered-to: srfi-86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <uek0chu7y.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx> (Joo ChurlSoo's message of "06 Apr 2006 01:18:09 +0900")
Mail-followup-to: srfi-86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <uek0chu7y.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

Joo ChurlSoo <init@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Although MU* can be substituted for MU and NU, MU* is much slower than MU.

This is not true: it depends on the implementation.

Also the semantics is different: the result of MU evaluates arguments
each time it is unpacked. Are you sure this is what you intended?

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

References:
- Re: order of evaluation
  - From: Joo ChurlSoo

Prev by Date: Re: Unnecessary
Next by Date: Cut and the operators mu and nu
Previous by thread: Re: order of evaluation
Next by thread: Re: order of evaluation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread