I'm confused. On comp.lang.scheme you proposed introducing FEXPRs
into the language, but you describe them as a call-by-name mechanism.
Traditionally, a FEXPR is a first-class macro. When applied, the
source code of the arguments is passed in.
A call-by-name procedure, on the other hand, would take its arguments
as thunks (like Algol 60!). Call-by-need is a variation where the
value is memoized if it is ever forced (like Haskell does).
So which is it that you are proposing?
On 5/28/07, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> So am I right in assuming that you were thinking of FEXPRs in the
> general case rather than the way SCM uses the term?
>
> On 5/27/07, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
> > Thomas Lord wrote:
> > > In the *general case* you can't expand fexpr-style macros at
> > > run-time however
> >
> > ur... that's "until" run-time, not "at," of course.
> >
> > -t
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~jrm
>
--
~jrm
Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 15:10:20 UTC