Alaric Snell-Pym writes: > Now, is my understanding that (> call/pc call/cc) true in all cases, > or not? Does anybody know of any counter-examples? > > Clearly, it's far too late for call/cc to be replaced by delimited > continuations for R7RS, but it would be nice to decide if it might > be worth considering for R8RS (along with immutable-by-default > pairs, perhaps? :-)
Such things should be considered for the large language now. If they can be implemented in terms of the small language, great, let us have them as a library, and implementations may be able to do them more efficiently. If not, then there are weaknesses in the small language that need to be understood and removed. I wrote a generator library in terms of call/cc (and r6RS exceptions). It was inspired by a broken attempt by someone else. It might have been easier and more natural with delimited continuations, which I have only read about, and I'm still worried about its correctness, in the ways suggested in this thread, so I'm not entirely happy with call/cc. Do not remove it, but maybe do look for a replacement. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
