[racket] future

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 29 21:00:28 EDT 2011

I think I'm with you, Carl. But I am still curious if there is someone
on the other side that has a rationale.


On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> Oh, another thought: I seem to recall a macro-writer rule of thumb:
>> "don't use a macro just to thunkify some argument". Is that a bad
>> memory on my part? Or does that not apply here somehow?
>> (BTW, I don't really feel very negative about this; I think it is a
>> good change overall.)
>> Robby
> I've heard that guideline before and never liked it.  Why not use a
> macro just to thunkify some argument?  Seems like a good use of a
> macro to me.  The purpose of "future" isn't to call a thunk later,
> it's to evaluate an expression later.  Thunks are just an
> implementation detail, one that the proposed macro nicely abstracts
> away.  Ditto for pretty much every "thunkify some argument" macro I
> can think of.
> --Carl

Posted on the users mailing list.