Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech2!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC CD 13816 -- ISLisp
Message-ID: <DJ88r5.GIJ@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <49o7ee$bkl@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <4a5pr7$227$1@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:33:04 GMT
Lines: 27

M'Isr <103235.2714@CompuServe.COM> writes:

>If they would use Call/CC continuations instead
>of 
>  TAG
>  CATCH
>  THROW

>Call/CC is more powerful can be used to
>write nondeterminative and multitasking
>and has inherent continuations--
>this is Schemes strong point eleminates three
>commands and does more, so why do we use Call/CC insted of

>  THROW
>  CATCH
>  TAG,
>  ETC.

Call/cc is more controversial than you might suppose.  Indeed,
some knowledgeable people feel it is a significant defect in
Scheme.

By the way, what is your "etc"?  What other cases do you have in
mind?

-- jd
