[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 Andy Wingo (20 Feb 2012 09:49 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 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 09:48 UTC

Hi Oleg,

On Mon 20 Feb 2012 08:36, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> writes:

> My bigger suggestion is to remove call/cc and dynamic-wind from the
> base library into an optional feature.

It would be difficult to do this without a suitably powerful
replacement.  Imagine the headlines: "Scheme backtracks on call/cc" ;-)

> I'd like to add the note inviting the discussion for more appropriate
> abstractions to supersede call/cc -- such generators, for example.

Why generators, when delimited continuations can implement them
trivially?

It seems to me that -F- is a worthy successor to call/cc [*].

Andy

[*] To implement a delimited call/cc on top of prompt and abort, you
would need an additional operator that captures a partial continuation,
but without unwinding the prompt.  I understand that Racket does this.
--
http://wingolog.org/

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