Re: [SISC-devel] partial k design

[Chris D. <chr...@do...>]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:29:53 +0000, "Matthias Radestock"
> I see. Btw, you write
> "..."
> which, sadly, is not universally true. In SISC, for instance, ordinary k 
> capture involves no copying, whereas partial k capture does. 
> Furthermore, ordinary k invocation does lazy copying, whereas partial k 
> invocation does eager copying. So partial ks will be both slower and 
> more memory intensive than ordinary ks.

Yes, I had this pointed out to me by another person who implemented
continuations in their programming language. The same thing there is a
partial continuation involves more work than an ordinary continuation. I
need to change that paragraph!

> As far as I can tell, this edge case behaviour of bshift/breset is 
> inconsistent with a view of partial continuations as segments of the 
> stack/future, so it would be difficult/impossible to implement in the 
> framework I was proposing.

I agree. Using the mark outside the scope of the reset should be
'undefined behaviour'. I think this is what the papers I've read that
implement the operators this way seem to say.

Chris.
-- 
  Chris Double
  chr...@do...