At 2:43 PM +0100 7/8/02, Andy Wardley wrote:
>A short time ago, in a nearby thread, Larry Wall wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just explain continuations in terms of time travel.
>
>Funny. I wrote a message to this effect the other night, but decided
>not to send it (too tired to decide if I was talking sense or nonsense).
>
>I was about to propose that 'continuation' is too long a word for lazy
>Perl folk to bandy around at will, and possibly too ivory tower for most
>people to grok.
The one problem with using time travel is that people will expect the
values of their variables to go back to what they were when the
continuation is taken, which they won't.
You could natter on about variables being embedded in a separate
n-dimensional reference frame while the control-flow is a way to
model multidimensional cross-universe tunnelling... but that'd
probably be a bit confusing. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
