----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Weirich <jweirich / one.net>
Date: Friday, August 8, 2003 8:32 am
Subject: Re: Why does Ruby have callcc?

> On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 01:42, Dan Doel wrote:
> 
> > It would read better
> > if you could do something like:
> > 
> > fun(Continuation.current, arg1, arg2, ...)
> 
> The problem with this that I see is that Continuation.current implies
> the continuation of the currently executing function.  For 
> example, in
> the following code ...
> 
>  def f
>    # Stuff
>    g(Continuation.current)
>    # More Stuff
>  end
> 
>  def g(cc)
>    cc.call
>  end
> 
> The continuation call in g would not return to "More Stuff", but 
> to the
> function calling f.
> 

Well, I guess the idea would be that Continuation.current would be the continuation of
whatever line you're on, or something like that. I agree that it's not a good way to represent it,
which is why I personally like callcc itself.