Hi, Let us try to rewrite the code in a more java-esque syntax: It translates to something like the below generic method. Correct? static <T> T function(IBoundsCheck<T> within, Delta<T> eps, Iterator<T> iterator, T initValue){ T currVal = initVal; while(iterator.hasNext()){ T nextVal = iterator.next(); if(within.verify(delta, eps, currVal, nextVal)) return currVal; currVal = nextVal } }
I have not tested it but I think this is a fair translation of the code. (For instance, by using an appropriate implementation of IBoundsCheck, I will be able to implement the 'relativeSqrt' functionality of the example). But this IS still a lazy evaluation. By passing an iterator instead of a list as the third argument of the static method, I achieved 'laziness'. In the example, the laziness is in the way we are iterating over the sequence of values [a0,f(a0), f(f(a0)),...] and so on and not on when the runtime evaluates appropriate values. Just that having to write, (repeat (next N) a0) is (take 1000 (repeat 1)) times more intuitive and convenient than having to implement the Iterator for T or implementing a true-while loop.
I see ... I think I understand now. hmmm ... I am little disappointed though - does that mean that "all the laziness" cool stuffs can actually be done using iterators(generators)? As in, but for the inconvenient syntax, you can do it all in - say java? -- Regards, Kashyap