Re: Rabbit

[Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>]

>    Date: Thu, 13 May 93 14:37:03 BST
>    From: Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>

>    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.

-- jd