Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search


From: chaz:innocent at: 22-Feb-2002 1:03

From: <[Robbo1Mark--aol--com]>
>What point are you making in relation to REBOL?
I apologize for being so obscure, please let me try again. There may indeed be something of value with regards to REBOL and continuations, but speaking as an observer, only, I've seen little evidence of interest in continuations, in this community. This posting is apparently by Joe Marshall the man who put continuations in REBOL 1.0 in the first place. If anyone should be an strong advocate for having continuation is REBOL he would be that person, but in fact poster merely states that continuations provide some advantages in coding the language, but in general they are unnecessary, and that he himself doesn't care whether or not a language contains them. ...The fact of the matter is that first-class continuations *aren't* used very often in `standard' code, and that CATCH/THROW, structured error handling, and a thread package will cover virtually all practical of first-class continuations. For this reason I don't much care if a language has first-class continuations or not. Sure, it is a bonus, and I *always* put them in to languages that I implement (REBOL 1.0 has first-class continuations), and they make writing the error handler and debugger far, far easier, but the end user doesn't care..."