On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Why does Ruby have callcc?"
>     on 03/08/06, Dan Debertin <airboss / nodewarrior.org> writes:
> 
> |> So, how'd it get there? Is there some killer use for callcc that I'm
> |> missing? Was it just for the "gee whiz" factor?
> |
> |I can't explain the "how'd it get there" part; I'll leave that to Matz
> |and friends.
> 
> The official answer is "why not".  I provide the features, you use
> them.

How consistent is this w/ your "no featuritis" policy?  In LL2 you had
to explain why Ruby had callcc but no macros; your answer was that the
latter are more easily abused ("too powerful" IIRC).

Do you still believe that or does "I provide the features, you use them"
represent a new policy?

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Excusing bad programming is a shooting offence, no matter _what_ the
circumstances.
	-- Linus Torvalds, to the linux-kernel list