Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: `thunk-let'?

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Given that "lazy evaluation" seems not to be described anywhere in the
> ELisp manual, I think we cannot get away with "---" here, and will
> have to add at least something to the manual.

Ok, here is a first draft of how I could imagine an addition to the
manual (as plain txt):

Deferred and lazy evaluation

Sometimes it is useful to delay the evaluation of an expression, for
example if you want to avoid to perform a time-consuming calculation
in the case that it turns out that the result is not needed in the
future of the program.


-- Macro: thunk-delay FORMS...

Return a thunk for evaluating the FORMS.  A thunk is a closure that
evaluates the FORMS in the lexical environment present when
`thunk-delay' has been called.


-- Function: thunk-force THUNK

Force a thunk to perform the evaluation of the FORMS specified to the
`thunk-delay' that created the thunk.  The result of the evaluation of
the last form is returned.  The THUNK also "remembers" that it has
been forced: Any further calls of `thunk-force' on the same THUNK will
just return the same result without evaluating the FORMS again.


-- Macro: lazy-let (bindings...) forms...

This macro is analogue to `let' but creates "lazy" variable bindings.
Any binding has the form (SYMBOL VALUE-FORM).  Unlike `let', the
evaluation of any VALUE-FORM is deferred until the binding of the
according SYMBOL is used for the first time when evaluating the FORMS.
Any VALUE-FORM is evaluated maximally once.

Example:

(defun f (number)
  (lazy-let ((derived-number
              (progn (message "Calculating 1 plus 2 times %d" number)
                     (1+ (* 2 number)))))
    (if (> number 10)
        derived-number
      number)))

(f 5)
==> 5

(f 12)
|--> "Calculating 1 plus 2 times 12"
25

Because of the special nature of lazily bound variables, it is an
error to set them (e.g. with `setq').


-- Macro: lazy-let* (bindings...) forms...

This is like `lazy-let' but any expression in BINDINGS is allowed to
refer to preceding bindings in this `lazy-let*' form.


Example:

(lazy-let* ((x (prog2 (message "Calculating x...")
                   (+ 1 1)
                 (message "Finished calculating x")))
            (y (prog2 (message "Calculating y...")
                   (+ x 1)
                 (message "Finished calculating y")))
            (z (prog2 (message "Calculating z...")
                   (+ y 1)
                 (message "Finished calculating z")))
            (a (prog2 (message "Calculating a...")
                   (+ z 1)
                 (message "Finished calculating a"))))
  (* z x))

|--> Calculating z...
|--> Calculating y...
|--> Calculating x...
|--> Finished calculating x
|--> Finished calculating y
|--> Finished calculating z

==> 8


`lazy-let' and `lazy-let*' use thunks implicitly: their expansion
creates helper symbols and binds them to thunks wrapping the binding
expressions.  All rerences to the original variables in the FORMS are
then replaced by an expression that calls `thunk-force' on the
according helper variable.  So, any code using `lazy-let' or
`lazy-let*' could be rewritten to use thunks, but in many cases using
these macros results in nicer code than using thunks explicitly.


WDYT?  I would definitely need a bit of help to turn this into texinfo
with good Enlish. 


Thanks,

Michael.