Jeremy Hylton: > I have to admit that I'm a bit unclear on the motivation for all > this. As Gordon said, the state machine approach seems like it would > be a good approach. If i understand what you mean by state machine programming, it's pretty inherently uncompartmented, all the combinations of state variables need to be accounted for, so the number of states grows factorially on the number of state vars, in general it's awkward. The advantage of going with what functional folks come up with, like continuations, is that it tends to be well compartmented - functional. (Come to think of it, i suppose that compartmentalization as opposed to state is their mania.) As abstract as i can be (because i hardly know what i'm talking about) (but i have done some specifically finite state machine programming, and did not enjoy it), Ken klm at digicool.com
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