30 Oct
2015
30 Oct
'15
8:41 p.m.
On 2015-10-22 11:29 PM, Samuel Rødal wrote:
I agree that the only laziness that's needed is to not evaluate s, and making the tree strict in the original code doesn't cause that as the tuple is still lazy. I just thought the article could be a bit more explicit about that to avoid confusion.
Tomorrow I'm going to make this change: delete the strict version of BTree, and just say that the only laziness needed is the laziness in s, and that "$! s" breaks it.