[Stackless] Continuations in Forth

Dirk-Ulrich Heise hei at adtranzsig.de
Tue Oct 31 14:57:09 CET 2000

> Actually, with Chris' continuations, the _values_ of the local variables
> aren't stored with the continuation: if another continuation changes the
> value of a variable in the same scope, this change is visible for the
> continuation whenever it continues. I don't know if Scheme behaves the
> same, but in my experience it's sensible behavior.

Really? Aren't two different continuations supposed to be
completely independant? Or do you mean, that his happens
as a consequence to Pythons semantics? So, if continuation
one has a variable that refers to some object A and continuation
two refers to it as well, and object A is mutable, it would
appear changed in both continuations? That would be okay,
as it is a direct consequence of Python semantics.

I didn't want to suggest to "copy" values of objects into
the continuations, that would not be in accordance with
Pythons semantics. Maybe i should've better said: "a
continuation stores an IP and the references that are
contained in the local variables".  Does this describe
the actual situation better?

Dipl.Inform. Dirk-Ulrich Heise
hei at adtranzsig.de
dheise at debitel.net

Stackless mailing list
Stackless at starship.python.net

More information about the Stackless mailing list