On 08/14/2015 11:16 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> The color of a television, tuned to a dead channel.
Bright, pure, sky blue? What an unusual grey.
https://twitter.com/DJSundog/status/629659761902948352
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" gr
> (1) how grey is your cat?
The color of a television, tuned to a dead channel.
Robby
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@
On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Klaus Ostermann wrote:
> Robby, I think what I want is simple to say:
>
> If I have a Racket program and manually CPS-transform and then
> defunctionalize it, I would be able to compare and analyze continuations (and
> normal procedures, for that matter).
>
> I w
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:29:37 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
>
> For that you would have to write a (straightforward) compiler that
> transformed a fully expanded Racket program into another program (in
> that same language), inserting with-continuation-mark expressions
> around every subexpression. R
For that you would have to write a (straightforward) compiler that
transformed a fully expanded Racket program into another program (in
that same language), inserting with-continuation-mark expressions
around every subexpression. Run the transformed program. Then, at the
point that you wish to comp
Robby, I think what I want is simple to say:
If I have a Racket program and manually CPS-transform and then defunctionalize
it, I would be able to compare and analyze continuations (and normal
procedures, for that matter).
I want to be able to do the same without CPS-transforming and defunction
This is not a direct answer, but has a few different answer-like things.
The Racket contract system has a similar problem to solve. Suppose
contracted procedure is supposed to return a number? value. The state
would look like this:
( continuation (obey-or-error number? ( function bod
I suppose it depends on exactly what equivalence relation you have in
mind on the continuations. My best guess for a fruitful path forward
would be to do something like the "hack" that you suggest below, using
continuation marks to record the information you need until later to
compute the equivale
Hi Klaus,
For what it’s worth, AspectScheme, which needs the call stack to express
control flow related pointcuts, redefines the #%app macro to reify the parts of
the call stack that you need using continuation marks.
I doubt there is a way other than that one to reify the call stack, but if
t
Is there any way in Racket to use (delimited) continuations to find out whether
I'm evaluating an expression in the same evaluation context as before?
Let's assume for a second that Racket had an ordinary call stack, and I could
access that call stack as a first-order value. Then I could compare
10 matches
Mail list logo
