Probably too easy to confuse with the continuation stuff on -async?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:29:21 +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: > CONTINUE > > On Jan 11, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Adam Prime wrote: > >> Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: >>> >>> I agree that NEXT isn't enormously better; it's a little clearer >>> though. Maybe we could come up with something else better? :-/ >>> >> >> DEFER >> PASS_THROUGH >> UNHANDLED >> >> >
