# [plt-scheme] 301.11

--- Greg Woodhouse <gregory.woodhouse at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>*
*>* In a way, this is part of the motivation for my little evaluator (the
*>* big motivation, of course, is my own education). In a normal order
*>* language, where identity is \x . x, then this is a reduction you
*>* ought
*>* to be able to carry our right away (or so I'd think). But applicative
*>* order seems to wreak havoc with this kind of optimization, since in
*>* (\x . x) y you don't even look at \x . x until you've evaluated y.
*>*
*
Come to think of it, though, you really may "only" care about an
s-expression being defined. In
(define x 'y)
((lambda (x) x) x)
there is no need to apply (lambda (x) x), just look up x to get y, so
maybe there is something that can be done.
===
Gregory Woodhouse <gregory.woodhouse at sbcglobal.net>
"It is foolish to answer a question that
you do not understand."
--G. Polya ("How to Solve It")