On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:02:34 -0400, Jason Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example it would be nice to have language constructs that > > tell that a variable's value should not be captured in a continuation, > > and how its value could be restored after the continuation is > > resurrected. > > A portion of this can be handled by the "volatile" and "transient" reserved > words, that currently do not have any particular semantics. > > The ECMAScript 4 proposal also includes support for "getters" and "setters" > that could possibly be hooked into the continuation system to deal with > the "restoring after resurrection" problem, much like Java2 reference > objects. Um, this is interesting. Let me take a look at the reserved keywords above, and the getter and setters for ECMAScript 4. I don't know about Rhino support for these, probably it's not there yet. > OK, I'm a little fixated on JavaScript :) That's because I understand > immediately how to solve a problem in that style of language. I've stared > at a few books describing Scheme and the like, and so far I'm (sort of) > comfortable writing the Towers of Hanoi but the thought of doing "real" > coding fills me with dread. Yes, I understand you. I was not imposing Scheme for the flow language, it's just an alternate language you should be able to use. What I was referring to in my previous email is a language whose syntax and semantics is closer to JavaScript, but not necessarily the same. Having our own implementation would allow us to do all sorts of optimizations for continuations-type things. It's a lot of work though to get started, and may be difficult to promote. We'll see whether this makes sense or not depending on how Rhino serves our needs. Regards, -- Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/ (GNU, Emacs, other stuff) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
