On Mon 21 Mar 2011 02:31, Wolfgang J Moeller <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello again, > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Andy Wingo wrote: >>[...] >> On Wed 09 Mar 2011 11:53, Wolfgang J Moeller <[email protected]> writes: >>[...] >> > (define-syntax reset >> > (define-syntax shift >> Did you write these yourself? May we include them in (ice-9 control)? > > Yes and yes. Sweet, thanks. > However, I don't like it anymore, since I seem to have learned > that this "direct implementation" doesn't at all play well > with the use of call/cc within the <body>s, while the call/cc-based > implementations of shift/reset appear to do so. > > I've yet to find out why the latter work "better", and if there's > a remedy possible using something like with-continuation-barrier ... Can you give some examples? In Guile things should work fine, AIUI. In the future (i.e., 2.2), I would like to change continuations to capture just the Scheme stack, and optionally delimit their extent to a prompt. I recommend Flatt et al's ICFP 2007 paper for a discussion. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
