Lazy a mistake?

[Bruno Medeiros]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
> If you want to discuss language design mistakes, why don't you discuss a 
> real mistake - the infamous "lazy"? Having a storage class change the 
> way a type is used - now that's the perfect example of the tail wagging 
> the dog. Ambiguity, confusion, non-scalability, and sheer nonsense - you 
> can have it all with lazy. Lazy should be either fixed or honorably 
> discharged pronto.
> 
> 
> Andrei
> 

What's the problem with lazy? I mean, concretely?
Are you trying to see lazy as a type modifier, and thus see it as broken 
type modifier? Perhaps that's the issue, don't see it as a type 
modifier! I see lazy as a construct in the same category as '...': a 
syntax that changes the way a function call processes its arguments. 
Just because 'lazy' is a word and not a series of symbols doesn't mean 
it should be interpreted as a type constructor.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D