Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!copper!harlan
From: harlan@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Pete Harlan)
Subject: Re: Fixing the order of evaluation. Minimizing the unexpected.
Message-ID: <harlan.670827729@copper>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Indiana University
References: <9104041629.AA19876@schizo>
Date:  5 Apr 91 05:02:09 GMT
Lines: 22

<A number of people> writes:

>Does the community of Scheme programmers really gain enough from having
>an undefined order of evaluation of arguments to a procedure?

Yes!  I have to read and understand other people's code a lot.  When I
look at a combination they've written, I currently don't have to think
about whether the order of the arguments matters (unless there is a
bug in the program; this sort of bug occurs *rarely*, in my
experience).  Do the proponents of fixed-order really think this is
unimportant information?

>Does it gain enough to make up for the losses faced as people learn
>the language. (Or in the long run, less usage of the language).

Are the 'losses' really that great?  The amazing thing to the student,
I think, is discovering how rarely it matters what the order is, and
the nature of those cases where it does.  Do you really want to take
that away? 

Pete Harlan
harlan@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
