< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous artilce (have the same parent)
N :the next (in thread)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
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