[gambit-list] Parameter objects performance Q

Jörg F. Wittenberger Joerg.Wittenberger at softeyes.net
Wed Mar 11 07:39:40 EDT 2020

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:19:01 -0400
Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> > On Mar 10, 2020, at 6:41 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
> > <Joerg.Wittenberger at softeyes.net> wrote:
> > 
> > ;; YMMV, but I find this not exactly intuitive.  
> On the contrary I find it very intuitive!> I give an example of why
> this semantics is what you want in the paper “A Better API for
> First-Class Continuations” section 1.3
> (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2405339_A_Better_API_for_First-Class_Continuations).

Note. I'm not saying that it would be wrong by any means.

Just warn that there is an assumption I'd say is "intuitive" (at least
for the novice): that "parameterize" is somewhat similar to "let",
i.e., "values are bound within".  They are just different scope and
secretly unwound behind the szene.

In practice I'm much easier confused understanding code with dynamic
scope applies than code where lexical scope rules.


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list