[Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Alex Shinn (20 Feb 2012 07:37 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Alaric Snell-Pym (20 Feb 2012 10:32 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Jussi Piitulainen (20 Feb 2012 11:15 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Jussi Piitulainen (22 Feb 2012 11:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Andy Wingo (20 Feb 2012 11:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Alaric Snell-Pym (20 Feb 2012 12:49 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Perry E. Metzger (20 Feb 2012 18:57 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Comments on draft 6 about call/cc Andy Wingo 20 Feb 2012 11:34 UTC

On Mon 20 Feb 2012 11:32, Alaric Snell-Pym <alaric@snell-pym.org.uk> writes:

> Now, is my understanding that (> call/pc call/cc) true in all cases, or
> not? Does anybody know of any counter-examples?

This is a misunderstanding: there is no call/pc.  Until relatively
recently, there was no good understanding of the relationships between
the various design choices (shift/reset, prompt/control, cupto, etc).

Now it seems clear (to me, anyway) that the -F- operator is the
fundamental one.  See the first part of
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/monadicDC.pdf.

> Clearly, it's far too late for call/cc to be replaced by delimited
> continuations for R7RS

Indeed, but it's not too early to start spreading the gospel of
delimited continuations ;-)

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports