On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote: > The cl-cont webpage says that defgeneric and defmethod are currently > not supported. Yes, what I meant is that there is no defgeneric/cc and defmethod/cc. I had no need for them, and for reasons that I can't remember now writing a transformer for defmethod/cc was a little bit tricky (I don't think it was too tricky, I just didn't have a reason to spend the time writing it).
> However, if I understand correctly, it should be > possible to say this: > > (defmethod foo (...) > (with-call/cc ...)) Sure, that will work. But strictly speaking, it's not a "full" continuation, because, for example, (foo :after) will be lost. I think to get this working so that people don't encounter surprises most of the time is tricky. > If this is indeed supported, it can happen that an invocation of > call-next-method is implicitly captured in a continuation. I've never done anything like this, defun/cc is usually more than enough for me. I don't think it happens in Weblocks codebase. But of course this would also need to be worked out. I think there are some subtle issues here. > P.S.: The cl-cont webpage also says that catch, throw, progv and > unwind-protect are not supported. It should be possible to make that > work with the first-class dynamic environments support in ContextL > (only in the repository version at the moment)... Cool! I'm not sure what the semantics would be for some of these constructs, I'd have to look into it in more detail. Hopefully someone else does it before I get the chance to :) Regards, - Slava --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
