From a605052341c491af7d8a4e59fda668ba47a75089 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Pryor Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:52:34 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] fix comment about forcing eval order Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- week4.mdwn | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/week4.mdwn b/week4.mdwn index 49a2c1f0..ab4411fe 100644 --- a/week4.mdwn +++ b/week4.mdwn @@ -520,12 +520,11 @@ but really all we're in a position to mean by that are claims about the result of the complex expression semantically depending only on this, not on that. A demon evaluator who custom-picked the evaluation order to make things maximally bad for you could ensure that all the semantically unnecessary computations got -evaluated anyway. We don't have any way to prevent that. Later, -we'll see ways to *semantically guarantee* one evaluation order rather than -another. Though even then the demonic evaluation-order-chooser could make it -take unnecessarily long to compute the semantically guaranteed result. Of -course, in any real computing environment you'll know you're dealing with a -fixed evaluation order and you'll be able to program efficiently around that. +evaluated anyway. We don't yet know any way to prevent that. Later, we'll see +ways to *semantically guarantee* one evaluation order rather than another. Of +course, in any real computing environment you'll know in advance that you're +dealing with a fixed evaluation order and you'll be able to program efficiently +around that. In detail, then, here's what our v5 lists will look like: -- 2.11.0