On Friday 14 July 2006 16:07, Bob Rogers wrote: > One way to ensure that a handler is not in scope > when invoked (though possibly not the only way) is to keep the list of > active handlers in a dynamic variable binding.
Here's what I don't understand. Why is there talk of a stack to keep track of various flow control constructs? Doesn't a CPS system use a linked list of continuations to handle normal flow control? If that works there, why not another linked list of continuations to handle exceptional flow control? -- c
