On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:29:53 +0000, "Matthias Radestock"
> I see. Btw, you write
> "..."
> which, sadly, is not universally true. In SISC, for instance, ordinary k
> capture involves no copying, whereas partial k capture does.
> Furthermore, ordinary k invocation does lazy copying, whereas partial k
> invocation does eager copying. So partial ks will be both slower and
> more memory intensive than ordinary ks.
Yes, I had this pointed out to me by another person who implemented
continuations in their programming language. The same thing there is a
partial continuation involves more work than an ordinary continuation. I
need to change that paragraph!
> As far as I can tell, this edge case behaviour of bshift/breset is
> inconsistent with a view of partial continuations as segments of the
> stack/future, so it would be difficult/impossible to implement in the
> framework I was proposing.
I agree. Using the mark outside the scope of the reset should be
'undefined behaviour'. I think this is what the papers I've read that
implement the operators this way seem to say.
Chris.
--
Chris Double
chris.double@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8
|
