Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Leo originally brought up the "labeling" idea,
Yes, one of the first ideas I had. I've tossed it later for similar reasons you are showing here with the ruby example. It just doesn't work. The second was refetching from lexicals. I tossed it later because not every register that is preserved around a call is a lexical (or global). I think we have discussed these two approaches long enough to be sure that they don't work. > I think we have basically 3 choices: support continuations such that > they work correctly in all HLL situations and accept likely poor > performance, or support only escape continuations, or devise a strategy > whereby Parrot itself doesn't provide continuations, but allows them to > exist at the HLL level somehow. These choices are not really desirable, IMHO. Number 3 doesn't work for technical reasons anyway. Frankly I think, I've presented a way to make continuations work correctly. I did *not* hear any technical or otherwise reasonable argument that it wouldn't work or that it's untenable, nothing, nada. A rule #1 overriding is neither technical nor reasonable in a case, where correctness is the problem. > JEff leo
