Newsgroups: perl.perl6.internals
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org
Return-Path: <d...@sidhe.org>
Mailing-List: contact perl6-internals-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list perl6-intern...@perl.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: d...@redcap.sidhe.org (Unverified)
Message-ID: <a05111b1bb9747487fc6c@[63.120.19.221]>
In-Reply-To: <20020805084317.GA24299@strontium.pps.jussieu.fr>
References: <a05111b14b973d63571a3@[63.120.19.221]>
 <20020805084317.GA24299@strontium.pps.jussieu.fr>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:42:05 -0400
To: Jerome Vouillon <vouil...@pps.jussieu.fr>
Subject: Re: Stack mark ops & such.
Cc: perl6-intern...@perl.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org
From: d...@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski)
Lines: 25

At 10:43 AM +0200 8/5/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:52:11AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>  Okay, I'm about half a step from putting pushmark, popmark, stack
>>  marks, and suchlike things into the core. This is everyone's chance
>>  to tell me how bad an idea that is. :)
>
>How is this going to interact with continuations and coroutines?

Interestingly. :)

Yielding out of a coroutine doesn't unwind anything, so there's no 
problem there. We only unwind on a return or uncaught exception.

Continuations... those are more interesting. Potentially we can 
unwind the same chunk of stack multiple times. Which is a good point, 
and I'm glad you brought it up--means I need to undo one of the ops. 
Thanks!

-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
d...@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk