Re: CPS in Parrot

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:51:17 -0400
> From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu>
> 
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 02:29 AM, Michael Sperber wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu> writes:
> >
> > Michael> "And, just to top it off, someone (no, I don't know who, so 
> > this might be
> > Michael>  CS Legend) once proved that you can build any control 
> > structure you can
> > Michael>  think of with continuations."
> >
> > @INPROCEEDINGS{Filinski1994-popl,
> >         CROSSREF = {POPL1994},
> >         AUTHOR = {Andrzej Filinski},
> >         TITLE = {Representing Monads},  YEAR = 1994,
> >         PAGES = {446-457}
> > }
> >
> 
> It depends on what you mean with "build". It is certainly not true that 
> FunctionalScheme + callcc
> can express F (my good old friend that produces composable 
> continuations, which eventually
> made it into Mach 4). I also don't see how FunctionalScheme + callcc 
> can express prompt.

Pardon my ignorance, but what are F and prompt?  Do you mean System F
(polymorphic typed lambda calculus)?  Also, what does Mach 4 refer to?
I'm lost :-(

> 
> I am also willing to throw in set! and challenge you again to define 
> "build" in a way that excludes
> at least thing.

At least thing?

> 
> My own definition of "build" was published as On the expressive power 
> of programming languages.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/scp91-felleisen.ps.gz

> 
> The small stack slices that Michael mentions were first around in MIT 
> Scheme and Chez Scheme.
> But Mike's reference to Clinger's paper is appropriate.

I can't find it on citeseer, though.  Does anyone know if it's available
online?

Mike

> 
> -- Matthias
> 
> 
> > I'm sure it's on Andrzej's homepage or on Citeseer.
> >
> > Michael> Also, Dan doesn't mention segmented stack architectures that 
> > are
> > Michael> essentially a linked list of stacklets of finite size.  With 
> > this you can
> > Michael> avoid most of the overhead of both stack copying (on the one 
> > hand) and
> > Michael> heap-allocated individual frames (on the other hand).  PLT 
> > scheme uses this
> > Michael> system.  There is a paper on this, but I can't find it right 
> > now.
> >
> > PLT's implementation of CALL/CC (and threads) is still pretty
> > expensive.  The paper to look at is
> >
> > @Article{Clinger:1999:ISF,
> >   author =       "William D. Clinger and Anne H. Hartheimer and Eric M.
> >                  Ost",
> >   title =        "Implementation Strategies for First-Class
> >                  Continuations",
> >   journal =      "Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation",
> >   volume =       "12",
> >   number =       "1",
> >   pages =        "7--45",
> >   month =        apr,
> >   year =         "1999"
> > }
> >
> > -- 
> > Cheers =8-} Mike
> > Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
>