On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:52 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>
> It seems clear that having `delay` spawn a background thread is
> consistent
> with the R5RS/R7RS definition of `delay`, so I have added the
> following
> editorial remark:

This is not clear to me.  What about the dynamic extent in which the
thunk is evaluated? This affects parameters. Additionally, there is no
gain to forking a thread at force time, because force must wait for the
return any ways.

This is better done with the clearer and already existing futures
feature that some implementation have.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports