[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
As I indicated, these things are very academic ideas that are probably
unintersting to most people on this list, but sine a number askd off the
> 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?
R, Cartwright and M. Felleisen. Extensible denotational language
specifications. In _Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (TACS)_,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1994, 244--272.
% invited talk at TACS
> 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
Here is the original reference on that:
Griffin, T. A formulae-as-types notion of control. In _Proc. 17th
ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages_, 1990, 47--58.
The French school has a whole bunch of other things to say on this topic
(now that they accepted Griffin's result).