we can stop. If we haven't found `5` already, we know it's not in the rest of the
list either.
-*Comment*: This is an improvement, but it's still a "linear" search through the list.
+> *Comment*: This is an improvement, but it's still a "linear" search through the list.
There are even more efficient methods, which employ "binary" searching. They'd
represent the set in such a way that you could quickly determine whether some
element fell in one half, call it the left half, of the structure that
you've got the right evaluation strategy in place, everything will work out
fine.
-But what if you're using v3 lists? What options would you have then for
-aborting a search?
-
-Well, suppose we're searching through the list `[5;4;3;2;1]` to see if it
+But what if we wanted to use v3 lists instead?
+
+> Why would we want to do that? The advantage of the v3 lists and v3 (aka
+"Church") numerals is that they have their recursive capacity built into their
+very bones. So for many natural operations on them, you won't need to use a fixed
+point combinator.
+
+> Why is that an advantage? Well, if you use a fixed point combinator, then
+the terms you get won't be strongly normalizing: whether their reduction stops
+at a normal form will depend on what evaluation order you use. Our online
+[[lambda evaluator]] uses normal-order reduction, so it finds a normal form if
+there's one to be had. But if you want to build lambda terms in, say, Scheme,
+and you wanted to roll your own recursion as we've been doing, rather than
+relying on Scheme's native `let rec` or `define`, then you can't use the
+fixed-point combinators `Y` or <code>Θ</code>. Expressions using them
+will have non-terminating reductions, with Scheme's eager/call-by-value
+strategy. There are other fixed-point combinators you can use with Scheme (in
+the [week 3 notes](/week3/#index7h2) they were <code>Y′</code> and
+<code>Θ′</code>. But even with them, evaluation order still
+matters: for some (admittedly unusual) evaluation strategies, expressions using
+them will also be non-terminating.
+
+> The fixed-point combinators may be the conceptual stars. They are cool and
+mathematically elegant. But for efficiency and implementation elegance, it's
+best to know how to do as much as you can without them. (Also, that knowledge
+could carry over to settings where the fixed point combinators are in principle
+unavailable.)
+
+
+So again, what if we're using v3 lists? What options would we have then for
+aborting a search or list traversal before it runs to completion?
+
+Suppose we're searching through the list `[5;4;3;2;1]` to see if it
contains the number `3`. The expression which represents this search would have
something like the following form:
discusses it in much more
detail](http://okmij.org/ftp/Streams.html#enumerator-stream).
-*Comments*:
-
-1. The technique deployed here, and in the v2 lists, and in our implementations
- of pairs and booleans, is known as **continuation-passing style** programming.
-
-2. We're still building the list as a right fold, so in a sense the
- application of `f` to the leftmost element `5` is "outermost". However,
- this "outermost" application is getting lifted, and passed as a *handler*
- to the next right application. Which is in turn getting lifted, and
- passed to its next right application, and so on. So if you
- trace the evaluation of the `extract_head` function to the list `[5;4;3;2;1]`,
- you'll see `1` gets passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to its
- `continue_handler`; then that answer is discarded and `2` is
- passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to *its* `continue_handler`,
- and so on. All those steps have to be evaluated to finally get the result
- that `5` is the outer/leftmost head of the list. That's not an efficient way
- to get the leftmost head.
-
- We could improve this by building lists as left folds when implementing them
- as continuation-passing style folds. We'd just replace above:
-
- let make_list = \h t. \f z continue_handler abort_handler.
- f h z (\z. t f z continue_handler abort_handler) abort_handler
-
- now `extract_head` should return the leftmost head directly, using its `abort_handler`:
-
- let extract_head = \lst larger_computation. lst
- (\hd sofar continue_handler abort_handler. abort_handler hd)
- junk
- larger_computation
- larger_computation
-
-3. To extract tails efficiently, too, it'd be nice to fuse the apparatus developed
- in these v5 lists with the ideas from [v4](/advanced/#index1h1) lists.
- But that also is left as an exercise.
+> *Comments*:
+
+> 1. The technique deployed here, and in the v2 lists, and in our
+> implementations of pairs and booleans, is known as
+> **continuation-passing style** programming.
+
+> 2. We're still building the list as a right fold, so in a sense the
+> application of `f` to the leftmost element `5` is "outermost". However,
+> this "outermost" application is getting lifted, and passed as a *handler*
+> to the next right application. Which is in turn getting lifted, and
+> passed to its next right application, and so on. So if you
+> trace the evaluation of the `extract_head` function to the list `[5;4;3;2;1]`,
+> you'll see `1` gets passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to its
+> `continue_handler`; then that answer is discarded and `2` is
+> passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to *its* `continue_handler`,
+> and so on. All those steps have to be evaluated to finally get the result
+> that `5` is the outer/leftmost head of the list. That's not an efficient way
+> to get the leftmost head.
+>
+> We could improve this by building lists as left folds when implementing them
+> as continuation-passing style folds. We'd just replace above:
+>
+> let make_list = \h t. \f z continue_handler abort_handler.
+> f h z (\z. t f z continue_handler abort_handler) abort_handler
+>
+> now `extract_head` should return the leftmost head directly, using its
+> `abort_handler`:
+>
+> let extract_head = \lst larger_computation. lst
+> (\hd sofar continue_handler abort_handler. abort_handler hd)
+> junk
+> larger_computation
+> larger_computation
+>
+> 3. To extract tails efficiently, too, it'd be nice to fuse the apparatus
+> developed in these v5 lists with the ideas from [v4](/advanced/#index1h1)
+> lists. But that is left as an exercise.
+