forEachOrdered semantics

Tim Peierls tim at
Mon Oct 7 10:16:24 PDT 2013

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at> wrote:

> So you are right that the intent of forEachOrdered did include some
> sequentiality to it.  So, question is, is the current naming and proposed
> semantics reasonable?

I think it's just confusing enough -- unreasonable enough -- to re-open the
naming question rather than trying to spec around it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts mailing list