Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as
> DS> part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby
> DS> the second, so it's all good in there
At 5:07 PM +0100 6/11/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:31:37AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as
>> part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby
>> the second, so it's all good in there.
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as
DS> part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby
DS> the second, so it's all good in there.
on the last perl cruise, i had a nice talk wit
At 12:29 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
You can think of continuations as an execution "context". This context
>incudes everything, not just stack. It is a snapshot in time. You may think
Let me rephrase. The context doesn't include "everything", rather everything
that is local to that c
At 05:07 PM 6/11/2002 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:31:37AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as
> > part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby
> > the second, so it's all good in the
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:31:37AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as
> part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby
> the second, so it's all good in there.
Does anyone feel like giving a 1 paragraph potted
At 8:22 AM -0400 6/11/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 01:38, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> (A note--when this says "stack" I really mean all the stacks)
>>
>> Okay, I've been thinking about stacks and stack frames, and suchlike
>> things. Well, calling them "stacks" is a bit of a mi
On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 01:38, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> (A note--when this says "stack" I really mean all the stacks)
>
> Okay, I've been thinking about stacks and stack frames, and suchlike
> things. Well, calling them "stacks" is a bit of a misnomer, since
> they're really trees, and that's partia
