At 9:48 AM +0100 7/8/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That sets you up for very scary action at a distance. Essentially
>you're proposing C
Well, sure. How else are we going to handle the INTERCAL front-end? ;-P
--
Dan
--
On 8 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> caller with no args is the same as C (for certain values of
> 'the same as'), caller(0) already returns the current execution
> context.
You're right. I stand corrected.
> > If you can set a block's continuation at runtime, I think you should be
> > able
On 5 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 8:29 AM -0700 7/4/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > >Sick. Anyways, I think it seems like a more natural way to do things than
> > >traditional call/cc. "$block.continuation" reads as "where do I go after
> > >$block?"
At 8:29 AM -0700 7/4/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>Sick. Anyways, I think it seems like a more natural way to do things than
>traditional call/cc. "$block.continuation" reads as "where do I go after
>$block?"; "$block.continuation($foo)" as "after executing $block, proceed
>on to $foo"; "(call/cc fu
On 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 8:32 AM +0100 7/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >For true scariness, consider:
> > >
> > > $sub.current_continuation($new_continuation);
> > >
> > Some days you really, really scare me Piers...
At 8:32 AM +0100 7/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Just a thought, I hope that we're going to be able to do things like:
>>
>> my $sub = {$^a + $^b};
>>
>> $sub.arity; # 2
>> $sub.prototype; # ('$^a', '$^b')
>>
>> Getting access to this sort of thing
