Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!m2!gateley
From: gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Fun. vs. Logic
Message-ID: <98997@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Date: 20 Nov 89 16:13:25 GMT
References: <11500018@hpldola.HP.COM> <11610@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3055@brazos.Rice.edu> <11632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@ti-csl.csc.ti.com
Reply-To: gateley@m2.UUCP (John Gateley)
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 13

In article <11632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) writes:
>My formal background is weak however.  Anyone else have some good ideas?
>[on why continuations are non-functional]

I have seen a combination of continuations and letrec (I'm using Scheme)
which created an object with state (i.e. non-referentially transparent).

I didn't look at it closely enough to determine if it was because of
the implementation of letrec (which uses side effects), or the definition
(based on Y).

John
gateley@m2.csc.ti.com