Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/8/05, Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In other words, it outputs:
>> >
>> > Foo
>> > Foo
>> > # dies
>
> Yep. My mistake.
>
>> If that works, then I think it means we can write:
>>
>> sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
>> my $cc = -> $retval { return $retval }
>> $code($cc);
>> }
>>
>> Which I personally think is rather cute. Even if I can't quite bring myself
>> to
>> believe it's that simple...
>
> Yeah, that's pretty. But that will bite people who don't understand
> continuations; it will bite people who don't understand "return"; it
> will even bite people who understand continuations, because they can
> be made in such an awkward form so easily.
Having worked through the little and seasoned Schemers, I'm actually at the
point where I can happily think that 'return' is deep scary magic. What I
*want* is a 'proper' continuation, but this would have been close enough for
government work until the real ones came along.
> Currently call/cc is done like this:
>
> sub call_with_current_continuation(&code) {
> &code(&?CALLER_CONTINUATION);
> }
>
> But that might be broken in pugs at the moment.
Doesn't that call code with the continuation of the caller of
call_with_current_continuation, when it *should* call &code with the
continuation of call_with_current_continuation?
