Re: A generalization of `thunk-let'

[Michael Heerdegen]

Hi,

> here is a proof of concept.  It is not exactly what you suggested: you
> have to declare dependencies explicitly (I think this would even make
> code better readable).  But dependencies do not need to be sscells - I
> made it so that dependencies can be arbitrary expressions (this includes
> variables as major case), and an equivalence predicate for testing can
> be optionally specified, defaulting to #'eq.
>
> You can make an sscell B depend on the value of sscell A by making B
> depend on the expression (sscell-get A).
>
> These sscell objects are a generalization of thunks as in thunk.el, and
> sscell-let is a generalization of thunk-let.

Stefan, would you be ok with that approach? (or please speak before I do
the final work and put it to Gnu Elpa...)


Thanks,

Michael.