[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> Date: Thu, 13 May 93 14:37:03 BST
> From: Jeff Dalton <email@example.com>
> Nonetheless, I agree that CALL/CC is too powerful. I would rather
> have coroutines/stack-groups or lightweight processes that CALL/CC
> even though (indeed, in part becuase) they are less general.
> There seem to be two positions being expressed on this issue:
> <1> CWCC is the pure CS notion of continuation by which all other
> control constructs can be expressed. DYNAMIC-WIND needs to be somehow
> restricted to actions which do not interfere with co-routine calls.
> Unwind-protects which do things like closing files need to be
> implemented some other way.
> <2> CWCC is too powerful. It should be split into several different
> constructs to express co-routines, multi-processing, escapes, process
> copying, etc. DYNAMIC-WIND will affect only some of these.
> In order for <2> to have the same power that CWCC currently does, we
> would need to add many constructs.
But I don't want to have the same power. That's the whole point.