From: "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> > > From: "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> > > > > > > So the compiler cannot look at what the thunk is used for. We need > > > uniform treatment of all thunks. (Even if it means that the thunk's > > > consumer has to work a little harder.) > > > > is it a correct assumption that generalized thunks be it, and so > > argumenting against them is wasting my time? > > Not at all. This is still wide open. I happen to like generalized > thunks because they remind me of Ruby blocks. But I realize there are > more ways to skin this cat. Keep it coming! question, do you want thunks to be able to take arguments? is being able to write something like this a target? iterate(list): (x): print x
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4