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

Re: Re:

[Felix Klock's ll1 list proxy <ll1@pnkfx.org>]
> [.. snip discussion of call/cc-as-proc vs. call/cc-opaque ..]
> The only difference that I can detect that is a particular pattern of 
> usage is encouraged with CALL/CC-OPAQUE, where invocations of 
> continuations is encouraged to stand out in the source base with the 
> THROW keyword marking them.

I think this is a pretty important difference, though, particularly
when we're talking about a primitive object in a language spec.
Saying, "Here's how you get this opaque value that you can use in a
'throw' special form," and, "Here's how you get this 'function' with
bizarro semantics" are very different...

If programmers want to confuse *themselves*, well, Scheme provides
ample opportunity for that... ;)

Besides, "encouraging a particular pattern of usage" is the bulk of
language design, isn't it?


Matt Hellige                  matt@immute.net