[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DYNAMIC-WIND vs. multi-processing
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 15:20:05 HKT
That's because CALL/CC doesn't distinguish these things. It's too damn
powerful. I do not like CALL/CC. It messes up my foundations for reasoning
about programs. And if it interferes with human reasoning, that goes
double for compiler analysis.
In Steel's 1978 Thesis on the Rabbit (optimizing) compiler, he uses
continuation-passing-style lambda as the compiler's intermediate form.
Although call-with-current-continuation was not part of Scheme at that
time it clearly would have been trivially handled by the compiler. So
I don't think any problems your compiler is having with CWCC are
I think we will lose a lot of succinctness in the
language if we start distinguishing these.
Jeez. The language doesn't even have a standardised record data structure,
exception mechanism, or a really finished macro system. Doesn't have a module
system of any kind, barring for the under-construction one Jonathan has in
S48. And we are worrying about concurrency primitives? Modula-3 is so far out
in front of Scheme as a real systems language it's staggering.
Scheme is the world's most powerful toy language.
How embarrassing for me! Nobody told me this so I went ahead and
programmed major systems (like b-trees, query optimization, symbolic
algebra, and a free text database) in a slightly augmented Scheme.
By the way, my b-tree system is designed to work in a multi-processor
shared memory system. All errors are explicitly handled by the code;
It does not use any condition handlers or dynamic binding so it avoids
the problem we are discussing. The only construct I had to add for
multi-processing was locks.