[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `thunk-let'?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: `thunk-let'? |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:37:46 +0200 |
> From: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:41:47 +0100
>
> > 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.
>
> What do others think about this? I had already asked if making
> `lazy-let' an alias to `thunk-let' would be ok (package prefix rule),
> but nobody had answered.
My opinion about this doesn't necessarily mean much, but I think such
n alias could be a good thing.
> A second question is: Do we really want to have the library have no
> autoloads?
I see no reason not to autoload these.
- Re: `thunk-let'?, (continued)
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/09
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/21
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/21
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/22
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Pip Cet, 2017/11/23
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/23
- Re: `thunk-let'?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/27
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/30
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/24
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/11/30
- Re: `thunk-let'?, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/11/30