kt wrote:<br><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div>&nbsp;If A is eager and depends on B and A has an observer that really really wants to stay on top of reality....
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I just had Cells4 kinda thought: what if all Cells are (in some new respect) lazy unless observed (directly or indirectly thru someone that is observed)?<br><br>btw, as radical as that change sounds, I am not sure it really rises to the level of &quot;Cells4&quot; -- I am suggesting this only because I think it is equivalent to Cells3 (assuming one is sane enough not to have side-effects inside rules) and merely automates the identification of which cells can be lazy (or looked at another way, automates the detection of the need for eagerness.
<br><br>Then the explicit thing becomes supporting a new class of much rarer (methinks) &quot;lazy&quot; observer whose existence would not trigger eagerness.<br><br>It would be interesting to see how much laziness ends up being deduced by this approach. The indirect eagerness (I am not observed, but I am called/used by someone who is) could get interesting.
<br><br>Jes thinkin out loud.<br><br>kt<br>&nbsp;</div><br></div><br>