threads & dynamic environment & continuations
shivers@xxxxxx
(12 May 2000 01:20 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations
Marc Feeley
(12 May 2000 01:55 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations
shivers@xxxxxx
(12 May 2000 18:14 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations
Marc Feeley
(12 May 2000 18:38 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations shivers@xxxxxx (12 May 2000 18:44 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations
Matthias Felleisen
(12 May 2000 02:46 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations
shivers@xxxxxx
(12 May 2000 02:58 UTC)
|
Re: threads & dynamic environment & continuations shivers@xxxxxx 12 May 2000 18:44 UTC
I considered the ((call/cc proc)) trick, but decided that it "required cooperation from the client" -- you have to use that double-paren trick at the call/cc site. But you have proposed it as a sort of "different" kind of continuation, which is just a different perspective on the same observation, but one that makes it more clear to me that this is no worse than the "kontinuations" I proposed in my message. So, fine! Do you think this should go in the SRFI, or be left out? Possibly discussed in the rationale section, since it isn't necessary to define any new primitives? -Olin