Re: [roland.winkler@physik.uni-erlangen.de: documentation bug: customization type `option']

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >     > lazy
> >
> >     I wrote documentation for this, but it was apparently never
> >     checked in.  See below.
> >
> > The reason is that the name `lazy' is not suitable for its
> > meaning.  I want the name to be changed before we document it.
> 
> 'lazy' was the name you suggested.
> 
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Creating recursive customization types / widgets
> Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:17:54 -0500
> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
> 
> The doc string for `child' is now clear, but it shows
> that `child' is not the right name for it.
> 
> ISTR that there is a frequently used term for an object
> whose value will be computed only when you actually refer to it,
> but it has been so many years that I don't remember the term.
> Is it "lazy"?  Maybe this type should be called `lazy'.
> 
> `delayed' is ok too.
> ----------

As a language feature, "lazy" is the most often used word as in "lazy
evaluation".  Scheme also has the noun "continuation" for what
amounts to an implementation of the concept.

I certainly think "lazy" appropriate.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum