[racket] future

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Sun Aug 28 12:34:10 EDT 2011

Before futures get too embedded in code...

This is probably a silly question, but why does the future construct
require an extra thunk?  The common case is going to be (future
<expr>); Racket is not Scheme, so it does not need to be afraid of
adding new syntax.  Is it particularly useful to have future be
available as a proc?  It seems to make more sense to have

  (future E ...) ==> (future/fun (lambda () E ...))

and provide both future and future/fun, so in the common case, code
stays that little bit more readable (and that little bit less

(I believe Clojure already breaks with tradition in this way.)


Posted on the users mailing list.