In response to Tony Davies question: Whether continuation & stream I/O are equally expressive I'm not actually sure, I have been told they're not & that continuation is more so - but I don't know they argument, however certain things are definitely a LOT easier using continuations so they certainly "feel" more expressive! But I'm not sure expressiveness is the right test (isn't assembler very expressive :-)) - for instance synchronisation between reqests & responses and between transactions is "guaranteed" by software for streams and by the I/O semantics for "result" continuations. (This is one reason why the "stream" module supplied in Hope+C isn't real streams - if you get your request/responses out of synch it sends you a rude message - a REAL stream system deadlocks/screws up in some other way :-) :-)) Joes question: No difference that I know of between continuation & stream models for parallelism. But concurrency (user specified & needed parallelism) is easier to specify/control in the continuation style - but then you could argue that is merely a subjective view. Nigel --- Dr Nigel Perry Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computer Science Tel: +64 6 356 9099 ext 8900 Massey University Fax: +64 6 350 5611 Palmerston North New Zealand
