Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!chaynes From: chaynes@sunfish.cs.indiana.edu (christophe haynes) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: terminology question Message-ID: Date: 23 Aug 90 17:02:34 GMT References: <1466@tub.UUCP> <418@ministry.cambridge.apple.com> Sender: news@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University Lines: 15 In-reply-to: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu's message of 22 Aug 90 16:01:20 GMT Not quite sufficient. One can easily imagine continuations that have indefinite extent but can only be used once. Dan Friedman and Chris Haynes wrote a paper about this, but I don't remember the title, etc. "Embedding continuations in procedural objects," ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1987), 582--598. Our "on-shot" continuations were implemented using general continuations. Though they might be useful in speciallized circumstances, they were offered primarily as a relatively simple example of the continuation embedding technique. I like to think of Scheme reified continuations as re-entrant. I do to.