Re: [stack] a lazy k (correction)

stevan apter — 2005-06-01 00:03:03

> 

> is it lazy?  you bet:

> 

>       !-1

> 

> causes a k error, because ! takes only non-negative integers.

> 

>       *x

> 

> takes the first of the list x.

> 

>       *[10;!-1]

> 

> returns 10.  i.e. !-1 is not evaluated.



 
not a good example - in fact, * (like all k primitives) is

strict:  *x fully evaluates its argument, then takes the

first.



this is a better example:



    first x y is x;

    (first 10)(!-1)

  10