we can stop. If we haven't found `5` already, we know it's not in the rest of the
list either.
-*Comment*: This is an improvement, but it's still a "linear" search through the list.
+> *Comment*: This is an improvement, but it's still a "linear" search through the list.
There are even more efficient methods, which employ "binary" searching. They'd
represent the set in such a way that you could quickly determine whether some
element fell in one half, call it the left half, of the structure that
discusses it in much more
detail](http://okmij.org/ftp/Streams.html#enumerator-stream).
-*Comments*:
-
-1. The technique deployed here, and in the v2 lists, and in our implementations
- of pairs and booleans, is known as **continuation-passing style** programming.
-
-2. We're still building the list as a right fold, so in a sense the
- application of `f` to the leftmost element `5` is "outermost". However,
- this "outermost" application is getting lifted, and passed as a *handler*
- to the next right application. Which is in turn getting lifted, and
- passed to its next right application, and so on. So if you
- trace the evaluation of the `extract_head` function to the list `[5;4;3;2;1]`,
- you'll see `1` gets passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to its
- `continue_handler`; then that answer is discarded and `2` is
- passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to *its* `continue_handler`,
- and so on. All those steps have to be evaluated to finally get the result
- that `5` is the outer/leftmost head of the list. That's not an efficient way
- to get the leftmost head.
-
- We could improve this by building lists as left folds when implementing them
- as continuation-passing style folds. We'd just replace above:
-
- let make_list = \h t. \f z continue_handler abort_handler.
- f h z (\z. t f z continue_handler abort_handler) abort_handler
-
- now `extract_head` should return the leftmost head directly, using its `abort_handler`:
-
- let extract_head = \lst larger_computation. lst
- (\hd sofar continue_handler abort_handler. abort_handler hd)
- junk
- larger_computation
- larger_computation
-
-3. To extract tails efficiently, too, it'd be nice to fuse the apparatus developed
- in these v5 lists with the ideas from [v4](/advanced/#index1h1) lists.
- But that also is left as an exercise.
+> *Comments*:
+
+> 1. The technique deployed here, and in the v2 lists, and in our
+> implementations of pairs and booleans, is known as
+> **continuation-passing style** programming.
+
+> 2. We're still building the list as a right fold, so in a sense the
+> application of `f` to the leftmost element `5` is "outermost". However,
+> this "outermost" application is getting lifted, and passed as a *handler*
+> to the next right application. Which is in turn getting lifted, and
+> passed to its next right application, and so on. So if you
+> trace the evaluation of the `extract_head` function to the list `[5;4;3;2;1]`,
+> you'll see `1` gets passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to its
+> `continue_handler`; then that answer is discarded and `2` is
+> passed as a "this is the head sofar" answer to *its* `continue_handler`,
+> and so on. All those steps have to be evaluated to finally get the result
+> that `5` is the outer/leftmost head of the list. That's not an efficient way
+> to get the leftmost head.
+>
+> We could improve this by building lists as left folds when implementing them
+> as continuation-passing style folds. We'd just replace above:
+>
+> let make_list = \h t. \f z continue_handler abort_handler.
+> f h z (\z. t f z continue_handler abort_handler) abort_handler
+>
+> now `extract_head` should return the leftmost head directly, using its
+> `abort_handler`:
+>
+> let extract_head = \lst larger_computation. lst
+> (\hd sofar continue_handler abort_handler. abort_handler hd)
+> junk
+> larger_computation
+> larger_computation
+>
+> 3. To extract tails efficiently, too, it'd be nice to fuse the apparatus
+> developed in these v5 lists with the ideas from [v4](/advanced/#index1h1)
+> lists. But that is left as an exercise.
+