Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Jeronimo Pellegrini (09 May 2011 03:12 UTC)
(missing)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Jeronimo Pellegrini (09 May 2011 18:06 UTC)
Re: WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Arthur A. Gleckler (09 May 2011 18:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Jeronimo Pellegrini (09 May 2011 18:34 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Andy Wingo (09 May 2011 21:56 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Ray Dillinger (11 May 2011 03:14 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Alaric Snell-Pym (10 May 2011 09:00 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Alaric Snell-Pym (10 May 2011 08:54 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] WG1 Scheme as a language for CS1 Andy Wingo 09 May 2011 21:56 UTC

On Mon 09 May 2011 20:34, Jeronimo Pellegrini <j_p@aleph0.info> writes:

> A minimalistic language would have continuations but not exceptions

Bad example, IMO; can you even implement exceptions robustly in terms of
continuations?  As long as your program itself does not use
continuations, right?

See http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/icfp07-fyff.pdf for more.

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/