Re: none

[Dan Sugalski <address@hidden>]

At 3:56 PM -0400 8/14/03, Bruce Lewis wrote:
><lewisbrown@acm.org> writes:
>
>>  Would somebody please elaborate on Dr. Felleisen's suggestion that
>>  'Scheme may have made a mistake' in treating continuations as plain
>>  functions; and, also, what would 'making vectors functions' give us?
>
>Dr. Felleisen has an evil plan for a Scheme implementation that
>implements truly first-class continuations, not just continuations
>encapsulated in a procedure.  He wants to store and compare
>continuations so that he can write a function with behavior that varies
>according to where it's being called from.  It will make the confusion
>people get from call/cc look like a walk in the park.

I can't believe that, really. That's a pretty weak Evil Plan, and Dr. 
Fellenstein is certainly capable of far greater acts of evil. :)

Now, allowing captured continuations to be inspected and altered at 
runtime (including binding mutation, complete rebinding of scopes, 
and call tree mutation)... *that* is really evil. And, I should point 
out, quite useful.
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk