On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 10:41 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
marc.nie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am So., 16. Okt. 2022 um 01:26 Uhr schrieb Shiro Kawai <
> shiro.ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> The sample implementation does it by not gluing the last activation
> record and the last set of marks to a continuation frame. This only
> happens, conceptually, for older frames.
>
> In the example below, CONT conceptually contains the latest frame
> without the continuation mark attached. Inside the evaluation of
> `with-continuation-marks`, the current continuation has changed,
> namely its latest frame has been replaced by one with a mark attached.
>
I see that is how reference implementation works, but is it the only
interpretation of the spec? Notably, the behavior of
with-continuation-marks replacing the latest frame is derived from the
current spec?
Probably I was not understanding "dynamically annotated" correctly. Does
it mean that the annotation of the latest frame is effective within the
dynamic extent of with-continuation-marks?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 12:22 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
> marc.nie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Sa., 15. Okt. 2022 um 13:25 Uhr schrieb Shiro Kawai <
> shiro.ka...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > Just to be sure. In the following code, the returned mark set
> contains the key-value pair {key, mark1} but not {key, mark2}, correct?
> >>
> >> Continuation marks are attached without mutation like when you cons to
> a list.
> >>
> >> In the example below, CONT captured by call/cc does not include any of
> >> the marks set by the code so the returned mark set neither contains
> >> any key-value pair of the two.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > ===
> >> > (let ((marks #f))
> >> > (call/cc
> >> > (lambda (cont)
> >> > (with-continuation-marks 'key 'mark1
> >> > (begin
> >> > (set! marks (continuation-marks cont))
> >> > (with-continuation-marks 'key 'mark2 #f)))))
> >> > marks)
> >> > ===
> >> >
> >> >
>
