Tim Peters wrote:
>
> Mentioned on c.l.py:
>
> http://cseng.aw.com/book/related/0,3833,0805311912+20,00.html
>
> This is the full text of "Advanced Programming Language Design", available
> online a chapter at a time in PDF format.
>
> Chapter 2 (Control Structures) has a nice intro to coroutines in Simula and
> iterators in CLU, including a funky implementation of the latter via C
> macros that assumes you can get away with longjmp()'ing "up the stack"
> (i.e., jumping back into a routine that has already been longjmp()'ed out
> of). Also an intro to continuations in Io:
>
> CLU iterators are truly elegant. They are clear and expressive.
> They provide a single, uniform way to program all loops. They
> can be implemented efficiently on a single stack.
> ...
> Io continuations provide a lot of food for thought. They spring
> from an attempt to gain utter simplicity in a programming
> language. They seem to be quite expressive, but they suffer
> from a lack of clarity. No matter how often I have stared at
> the examples of Io programming, I have always had to resort to
> traces to figure out what is happening. I think they are just
> too obscure to ever be valuable.
Yes, this is a nice and readable text.
But, the latter paragraph shows that the author is able
to spell continuations without understanding them. Well,
probably he does understand them, but his readers don't.
At least this paragraph shows that he has an idea:
"""
Given that continuations are very powerful, why are they not a part of ev-ery
language? Why do they not replace the conventional mechanisms of con-trol
structure? First, continuations are extremely confusing. The examples
given in this section are almost impossible to understand without tracing,
and even then, the general flow of control is lost in the details of procedure
calls and parameter passing. With experience, programmers might become
comfortable with them; however, continuations are so similar to gotos (with
the added complexity of parameters) that they make it difficult to structure
programs.
"""
I could understand the examples without tracing, and they
were by no means confusing, but very clear. I believe the above
message coming from a stack-educated brain (as we almost are)
which is about to get the point, but still is not there.
> Of course in the handful of other languages that support them, continuations
> are a wizard-level implementation hook for building nicer abstractions. In
> Io you can't even write a loop without manipulating continuations
> explicitly.
What is your message? Do you want me to react?
Well, here the expected reaction, nothing new.
I already have given up pushing continuations
for Python; not because continuations are wrong,
but too powerful for most needs and too simple
(read "obscure") for most programmers.
I will provide native implementations of coroutines
& co in one or two months (sponsored work), and
continuation support will be conditionally compiled
into Stackless. I still regard them useful for
education (Raphael Finkel would argue differently
after playing with Python continuations), but their
support should not go into the Python standard.
I'm currently splitting the compromizes in ceval.c
by being continuation related or not. My claim that
this makes up 10 percent of the code or less seems
to hold.
chewing-on-the-red-herring-ly y'rs - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.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