Scheme mistakes (was Re: nil)

[address@hidden]

    That's the mechanics of the suggested changes, but why are they
improvements?  What is gained and would anything be lost?

    Why is it a good thing to make using a continuation object look less
like a function application and also a good thing to make using a
vector object look more like a function application?


> He's suggesting that continuations should probably not respond #t to
> procedure? (in other words, continuations should not have the same
> types as procedures do).
>
> And possibly you should have to write (something like):
>
>   (throw k v)
>
> rather than:
>
>   (k v)
>
> to invoke a continuation. That's the way that SML/NJ does it.
>
> As far as vectors as functions, it means that the vector selection
> operation becomes applying a vector (as a function) to a number.
> Mutation would be applying it to two values, a number as index and new
> value to store at that index.
>
> Robby