Re: RFC: lazy statements

> However, that also means there's an enormous potential for race > conditions. Technically no more than closures now, but the use cases > seem like they'd make it more prevalent. If you "use" by reference, or > use a mutable object, or a service that depends on IO, etc. then the > resulting value of the lazy variable is not technically > non-deterministic, but will certainly feel like it to the developer. I think that lazy statements should not be used when you can have possibilities like that. It should not be a substitute to methods. So, for instance, if I have a mutable dependency, is better I create a method to do that, that could work better with that. I can think about how we can handle this, but I need a real case where this problem can exists. Can you help with this? Thanks!