Xref: utzoo comp.object:510 comp.lang.c++:5684
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!uw-june!peterd
From: peterd@cs.washington.edu (Peter C. Damron)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Continuations
Message-ID: <9964@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 89 20:11:10 GMT
References: <2664@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <9624@pyr.gatech.EDU> <1623@odin.SGI.COM> <1989Nov28.183816.15252@odi.com>
Reply-To: peterd@june.cs.washington.edu (Peter C. Damron)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 29

In article <1989Nov28.183816.15252@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:
>In article <1623@odin.SGI.COM> shap@delrey.sgi.com (Jonathan Shapiro) writes:
>
>   I do not believe that it is feasible to add continuations to C++ for
>   any number of reasons, but I would be interested to hear the reactions
>   in this community regarding their utility in object-oriented programming.
>
>They are just as useful in object-oriented programming as in straight
>Lisp or Scheme.

How can you make this claim?

>However, continuations in the Scheme style are only
>useful if full support is provided for lexical scoping.  C and C++
>have no lexical scoping whatsoever.

I just had to reply when I saw this.  C and C++ are definitely "lexically
scoped" (I would prefer to call it statically scoped).

Peter.

---------------
Peter C. Damron
Dept. of Computer Science, FR-35
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98195

peterd@cs.washington.edu
{ucbvax,decvax,etc.}!uw-beaver!uw-june!peterd


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com