Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!cambridge.apple.com!alms
From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: what makes programming?
Message-ID: <ALMS.90Aug23190310@ministry.cambridge.apple.com>
Date: 23 Aug 90 23:03:10 GMT
References: <9008201428.AA01042@samsung.com> <578@array.UUCP>
Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: colin@array.UUCP's message of 23 Aug 90 01:24:06 GMT

In article <578@array.UUCP> colin@array.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:

   Does anyone know why "call/cc" made it into scheme as the preferred way
   to access continuations?  You often have code like:
   (call/cc (lambda (cc) (...code that uses cc...)))
   which seems slightly inelegant to me.

This means that CALL/CC can be a function.  It doesn't have to be
a macro.

cf CALL-WITH-INPUT-FILE and CALL-WITH-OUTPUT-FILE.

For a case where people decided the extra syntax was worthwhile,
see LET, and LET*.

    -andrew
--