2008/4/24 Steven Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So it works if you do a CPS transformation on all your code leaving > your frames on the heap. In that case you can tail call a continuation > to simulate the exception. I am interested in this approach. I like > the flexibility that CPS style gives (perhaps different exception > models to the norm). However, wouldn't this approach have other > performance consequences (mainly the heap-based frames)?
Sorry to follow up my own post with more thoughts. What I'm getting at is if CPS transformation and tailcalls were so performant for exceptions then why bake exceptions into the CIL and into the JVM bytecodes? I really appreciate Scheme because it provides the primitives to implement high-level constructs like exceptions (and coroutines, backtracking) but I figured because the "big guys" in runtime systems baked in particular exception systems then it wasn't considered fast enough for this common case. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
