On 2001-11-30T21:45:48-0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > That's not connected to having catch/call-cc in your language. > > It's also true that you do NOT need continuations to model > catch/call-cc. You can do it with a very different semantics with > pleasing properties. Sorry. This sounds interesting -- could you please go into more detail or give some references? > 2. Church didn't come close to continuations, though as Griffin discovered > working with me, some logicians did. They embedded a part of classical > logic into constructive logic and *that* turned out to be like cps-ing. I am vaguely aware of this, but a canonical reference would be greatly appreciated. -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig Ken "these contents are unpredictable" Shan
Attachment:
pgp19001.pgp
Description: PGP signature