Re: `thunk-let'?

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Pip Cet <pipcet@gmail.com> writes:

> Unless I'm missing something (there appear to be two attachments to
> that last email),

There was one inline for reading, and one attached for testing.

> you define thunk-let and thunk-let*, but document lazy-let and
> lazy-let*.

Oops.  Sounds the same for me right now.  Thanks for noticing that.


> IMHO, lazy-let is much better as a name: thunk-let doesn't describe
> what it does, only how it's implemented; more importantly,
> JavaScript-like Promises could also be implemented with thunks, so
> it's ambiguous.

What do others think about this?  I had already asked if making
`lazy-let' an alias to `thunk-let' would be ok (package prefix rule),
but nobody had answered.

A second question is: Do we really want to have the library have no
autoloads?  It's, at least, a bit unusual to have these things
prominently described in the manual, and you have to require the library
explicitly (if we keep it like this, I would have to add a note to the
manual that you must require the library in order to use the described
stuff).


Thanks,

Michael.