[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CPS != call/cc
At 1:10 PM -0400 8/6/03, John Clements wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Peter J. Wasilko, Esq. wrote:
>
>>>Well... it can sort of help, but there are some limits. Multiple
>>>stacks tend to solve other problems, and they're certainly useful,
>>>but for a CPS scheme you really need more of a linked frame system
>>>than a stack system, since the control information really builds up a
>>>tree (albeit one often with a single branch) rather than a stack.
>>
>>Dan,
>>
>> I see, so what would an optimal hardware architecture be for
>>supporting CPS?
>
>CPS, or continuation-passing-style, is not the same thing as a
>language that includes primitives for continuations.
While true, the threads are all in the context of Parrot, so its all
semantics and no language. (Well, unless you consider assembly a
language, but that's stretching things a bit) The continuations we
use as part of the CPS scheme are all first class continuations--the
only difference between them and first class continuations you make
explicitly is that sometimes you don't have to explicitly make them.
Otherwise they're completely interchangeable.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk