Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!leto.rice.edu!matthias
From: matthias@leto.rice.edu (Matthias Felleisen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Non Chez Nous
Message-ID: <1991Mar16.155847.4314@rice.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 91 15:58:47 GMT
References: <4977@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1991Mar15.163509.12130@rice.edu> <2877@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 20

In article <2877@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de> net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) writes:
> ... dynamic-wind and fluid-let (how are you going
>to define this in an R*RS-implementation?), etc.
...
>Oliver Laumann    net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de  net@tub.UUCP  net@pogo.ai.mit.edu
This is a standard result in the literature: 
  {Haynes, C. and D.P. Friedman}.  Embedding continuations in procedural
  objects.  {\it ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. \bf9}(4), 1987,
  582--598.  Preliminary version: Constraining Control. In {\it Proc.
  12th ACM Symposium Principles of Programming Languages\/}, 1985,
  245--254.
And I suspect that Kent would be more than happy to provide you the
defining SCHEME files: 
  dyb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu.

Wrt error handling, I agree w/ you that R^{139}RRS doesn't do it
right: Scheme needs errors that unlike continuations, can be caught at
any place in the program. 

-- Matthias