+1. Sentences have truth conditions.
+
+2. If "John read the book" is true, then it follows that:
+ John read something,
+ Someone read the book,
+ John did something to the book,
+ etc.
+
+3. If "John read the damn book",
+ all the same entailments follow.
+ To a first approximation, "damn" does not affect at-issue truth
+ conditions.
+
+4. "Damn" does contribute information about the attitude of the speaker
+ towards some aspect of the situation described by the sentence.
+
+
Expressives such as "damn" have side effects that don't affect the
at-issue value of the sentence in which they occur. What this claim
says is unpacked at some length here: <http://tinyurl.com/cbarker/salt/interaction/salt.pdf>.
However, this doesn't work. The reason is that an undelimited continuation represents the future of the evaluation of `(damn)` *until the end of the computation*. So when `'id` is supplied to `k`, we go back to building the at-issue tree until we're finished *and that's the end of the computation*. We never get to go back and evaluate the application of `(cons (cons 'side-effect 'bad) <>)` to anything.
-With undelimited continuations
+With delimited continuations
------------------------------
The straightforward way to fix this is to use, not undelimited continuations, but instead a more powerful apparatus called "delimited continuations." These too will be explained in due course, don't expect to understand all this now.
(define damn (lambda () (shift k (cons (cons 'side-effect 'bad) (k 'id)))))
-And voilà.
+And voilà!
(reset (cons (cons 'the 'man)
(cons 'read