At 11:00 AM +0200 6/9/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:39:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >Instead of using some space on the stack, co-routines can store all
>> >their local variables into their closure. Then, there is no need to
>> >swap in any context.
>>
>> You still need to store the stack frames created since the start of
>> the coroutine when picking up after the yield. Otherwise we're
>> declaring that coroutines can't use any stack at the point a yield is
>> called, which is a rather big thing to declare.
>
>Python-style co-routines have this very restriction. If we want real
>co-routines, we can build them on top of callcc, which will take care
>of storing the stack frames.
I'm not sure I want to go all the way to using continuations for
coroutines. Seems a bit of overkill, especially on the return from
the coroutine. Python-style restrictions are right out, of course--if
we're going to do it, we might as well do it right as we don't have
an existing implementation we're restricted by.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
