Tim Peters <tim_one@email.msn.com>: > Doesn't mean call/cc sucks, but language designers *have* been avoiding it > in vast numbers -- despite that the Scheme folks have been pushing it (& > pushing it, & pushing it) in every real language they flee to <wink>. Yes, we have. I haven't participated in conspiratorial hugggermugger with other ex-Schemers, but I suspect we'd all answer pretty much the same way. Lots of people have been avoiding call/cc not because it sucks but but because the whole area is very hard to think about even if you have the right set of primitives. > BTW, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm (mostly) in favor of it! It can't > possibly be sold on any grounds other than that "it works, for real Python > programmers with real programming problems they can't solve in other ways", > though. Christian has been doing a wonderful (if slow-motion <wink>) job of > building that critical base of real-life users. And it's now Christian's job to do the next stop, supplying up-to-date documentation on his patch and proposal as a PEP. Suggestion: In order to satisfy the BDFL's conservative instincts, perhaps it would be better to break the Stackless patch into two pieces -- one that de-stack-izes ceval, and one that implements new language features. That way we can build a firm base for later exploration. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4