> Perhaps we should just explain continuations in terms of time travel.
> Most people think they understand time travel, even when they don't.
> A continuation is just a funny label for a point in time, and you have
> a way of sending messages from the future back to that point in time.
Hrm...her
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yep. But serializing continuations is either tough, or not
> completely doable, since programs tend to have handles on things
> outside their direct control like filehandles, sockets, database
> connections, and suchlike things. Resuming a continuatio
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:54:16 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> while ($foo) {
> $foo--;
> }
>
> Pretty simple. (For illustrative purposes) To do that with
> continuations, it'd look like:
>
> $cont = take_continuation();
> if ($foo) {
> $foo--;
> invoke($cont);
>
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:42:03 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
> > When you invoke a continuation you put the call scratchpads and lexical
> > scratchpads back to the state they were when you took the continuation.
>
> If you restore the lexicals, how does this ever finish?
Never mind. It's the *acces
In (re?)examining the Apocalypses, I've found something that confuses me a
bit. A2 refers to C as a "pseudopackage" and says:
__LINE__ becomes MY.line
__FILE__ " MY.file
There is also Apocalypsal reference to C<%MY> as a name for the current
lexical symbol table.
First:
