Re: Procedure proposal: call-with-escape-procedure

[Marius Vollmer]

Martin Grabmueller <address@hidden> writes:

> > Yeah, got carried away, sorry.  Your original implementation seemed
> > fine.  But in the light of all this, I would not want to add it to
> > Guile until we know what it will do precisely.  Your implementation
> > seems easy enough that you can just put it into the programs that
> > needs it, right?
> 
> Right, but I thought call/ec might by of general interest, that's why
> I suggested to include it into the distribution.

We can direct people towards catch and throw if they want something
like call/ec.  I really want to first get a better idea about the
larger issues sourounding continuations, stack unwinding, etc.
 
> And if we're getting a better version in the future, I'll be happy
> with that, of course.

Yes, but I would like it better if we introduced call/ec when we are
pretty certain about it.  It is not difficult to use catch and throw
instead for the time being.

I hope to write something up in the next days.