Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:45:59 -0700

   From: "D.McClain" <dbm@asyrmatos.com>

   Okay, you have my attention... let's see that isomorphism in  

   practice.

I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

   I have seen my own measurements, and invariably they produce code

   that is 30% slower for CPS form than direct form. Perhaps the

   compilers producing the actual native code have been tuned to look

   for common human idioms and not CPS traits?

The way you say that suggests to me that you are using the *same*

compiler to compare a direct-style program with the same program

converted to continuation-passing style.  Unless the compiler is

extremely clever, it will probably generate worse code for the CPS

form of the program, for the reason I explained in my first message.

That's a very different question, however, from the question of how

the use of a CPS intermediate representation affects the code that a

compiler generates.