lazy-ref.clj

(deftype LazyRef [ref]
  clojure.lang.IDeref (deref [] (force @ref)))

(defn lazy-ref* [thunk]
  (LazyRef (ref (delay (thunk)))))

(defmacro lazy-ref [form]
  `(lazy-ref* (fn [] ~form)))

(defn lazy-alter [r f & args]
  (alter (:ref r) (fn [x] (delay (apply f (concat args [(force x)]))))))

;; Example

(def r1 (lazy-ref (do (println "r1 forced") 42)))

(println @r1)
(println @r1)

(def r2 (lazy-ref (do (println "r2 forced") 42)))

(dosync (lazy-alter r2 (fn [x y] (println "r2 alter forced") (+ x y)) 8))
(println "after lazy-alter")
(println @r2)
(println @r2)

Thanks, Meikel. Clojure's preferred currying order always surprises me.

There might be arguments for any order. For clojure there is at least some rationale by Rich.

Sidenote on a pet peeve of mine (bashing unconditional point-free style): Looking at constructs like (apply f (concat args [x])) casts some doubt on the superiority and elegance of point-free style.

I don't think anyone programs in an unconditional point-free style, so you are bashing a strawman. As with everything in programming, the value of something like point-free style should be judged on a case by case basis. There wasn't any point-free code in what I posted.

There are some community members advocating point-free style quite heavily. Hard at the limit to point-lessness, IMHO.

Anyway, I was not refering to your code. In fact I like your code. You did something similar to Refs I did to Maps with my lazymap library.

I've programmed a lot in Haskell and point-free style is often the right answer there. Clojure makes different semantic and syntactic trade-offs, so I find that it's less frequently the right answer. In any case, I consider use of expression threading macros like -> and ->> to be "morally" the same as point-free style.