Re: none

[Bruce Lewis <address@hidden>]

<lewisbrown@acm.org> writes:

> Would somebody please elaborate on Dr. Felleisen's suggestion that
> 'Scheme may have made a mistake' in treating continuations as plain
> functions; and, also, what would 'making vectors functions' give us?

Dr. Felleisen has an evil plan for a Scheme implementation that
implements truly first-class continuations, not just continuations
encapsulated in a procedure.  He wants to store and compare
continuations so that he can write a function with behavior that varies
according to where it's being called from.  It will make the confusion
people get from call/cc look like a walk in the park.

Making vectors into functions would not restrict their use in any way,
thus not interfering with his evil plan.