[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Name for BABY-DOE should not include "values".

John says, ``The important fact about BABY-DOE is not that it calls a
procedure with some values.  Please verify my point by studying the formal

I disagree completely; to my mind, that is the entire significance of
BABY-DOE.  I don't see that there is anything ``unusual'' about the
continuation created by BABY-DOE.  It is just one of several kinds of
continuations, each with very different behavior, created by IF, SET!,
function-application, etc.  In short, I don't think it needs a name
referring to continuations any more than IF or SET! does.  Of course, it is
an operation on continuations, but most things are.

None of John's current tries at a better name seems even close to having
the perspicacity of ``call-with-values''.