Re^3: Doing "it" only once

Understood. But neither your (trivial) example motivating problem, nor your proposed solution, addresses any of those points either. So I don't quite grep why you have any issue with my/coq's answer.

Why don't you post a real-world problem that has all of your bulleted issues above, and then post a real-world solution for that problem?

Comment on Re^3: Doing "it" only once

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Doing "it" only once by Limbic~Region (Chancellor) on Sep 21, 2005 at 16:29 UTC
jdporter, See my reply to the AM. Paragraph added What are you calling my proposed solution? I have not provided any solution. I have outlined a functionality that does not exist and asked for people to think about how they would use it if it did. I included the original example just so people could get an idea of what I was talking about. I wasn't hoping for people to provide solutions to specific cases but to think about what they would do if they had a built-in general purpose way of identifying code that once executed would disapear. So far, optimizing looping constructs appears to be the only application but I can't believe that's the only one. Cheers - L~R	[reply]
Re^5: Doing "it" only once by jdporter (Paladin) on Sep 21, 2005 at 18:01 UTC
What are you calling my proposed solution? I was referring, however inaccurately, to "the following inelegant code". FWIW, lambdas are one way I typically address the need for dynamically replacing code at runtime, just as in your... "inelegant code" (for lack of a better name). In larger application contexts, object-oriented solutions are probably better, IMO.	[reply]