>>Now imagine that we lied. We don't really reify evaluation contexts as [continuation] procedures but as [continuation] objects with additional operations for inspecting and possibly mutating them. One could imagine that continuations are organized as a [abstract] sequence of [abstract] frames:
Now I've become slightly confused by the direction the discussion has taken. Continuations do appear to be a distinct primitive as opposed to procedures, and Racket provides the predicate continuation? (see Reference s.9.4) Racket also provides operations for inspecting continuations, for example (continuation-marks k) returns the set of marks associated with k. (see Ref. s9.5). Is the answer 'Racket can't provide mutable continuations b/c continuations are implemented like procedures' or is it 'Racket could implement mutable continuations, but has not' And, to be clear, I don't have a single reason for why it should provide mutable continuations. I'm just attempting to check my understanding of Racket's continuations by investigating some obvious corrollaries. Thanks Zack ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
