On 1/30/07, Nikolai Weibull <now / bitwi.se> wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. <eustaquiorangel / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I was checking some CLR opinions and - correct me please if I'm wrong - seems
> > that there were some trouble with continuations. Is just a happy coincidence the
> > Matz's plans to remove continuations from 1.9.x?
>
> As far as I understood it, a big reason for removing contiuations is
> because they were hard to implement on (certain?) virtual machines.
> It's sad, and wrong in my opinion, that they're being removed.  They
> don't enjoy much use, but they do allow for some funky stuff.

Continuations are not being "removed." At least the removal hasn't
been announced if there is going to be one. The only thing people keep
mistaking this for is that YARV did not support continuations at merge
time. They might be added in if code is volunteered. Considering this
context, they weren't removed as much as they were _never_added_.

I think the position Matz has taken is that they would allow
continuations to be implemented again but they are not going to hold
up the release of 1.9 at the end of the year for the feature (my
interpretation could be wrong). This means that later releases might
include them. For now, most uses of continuations in the stdlib have
been replaced by working alternative methods IIRC (i.e. generators).

Honestly, I hate to see the lack of callcc but I find this trade off
very pragmatic at this point.

Brian.