Re: `thunk-let'?

[Pip Cet <pipcet@gmail.com>]

Unless I'm missing something (there appear to be two attachments to
that last email), you define thunk-let and thunk-let*, but document
lazy-let and lazy-let*. 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. (The difference is that JavaScript
promises get evaluated at some point in the future and their result is
then made available; lazy variables are never evaluated unless they're
actually needed.)

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
> Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
>
>> This helped a lot.  My first version even compiled without error.  I'll
>> post the updated patch soon.
>
> Ok, here is what I have, with everything discusses included (see also
> attached).  I will proofread it once more, maybe others will want to
> have a look in the meantime, too.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael.
>
>