On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Rahul Jain wrote:
> > Would it be feasible to add full continuation support to CMU CL? > > How would you implement unwind-protect correctly? How would you > _specify_ a correct implementation of unwind-protect? You mean, does the unwind-protected code get re-started when you re-enter a certain point of execution via resuming a continuation and then exit again? I don't see a problem in re-doing the unwind-protected stuff once again. Sure, this would mean that unwind-protect and continuations could not be mixed as freely as one might want. But what one would like to have in the end is dynamic-wind, anyway, so I really do not see why this particular maybe-not-so-nice linguistic feature of CL should bar the introduction of a different very powerful and useful concept. -- regards, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)
