Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
... I didn't follow about how that interferes with tail-call optimization. (To me, "tail call optimization" == "replace recursive call with a goto to the end of the function preamble")
Um... no. tail call optimization implies being able to replace *any* tail call, not just a recursive one with a simple goto. Consider the following calling sequence:
b(arg) -> Push Continuation A onto the continuation chain
Continuations are different anyway. They store the context of the parent at the point they were created, and on invoke they swap context.
Why do I have the feeling that I've managed to make this whole thing even less clear now?
You say it ;-) leo
