From 673e6ce8ada5e8f4e0f41b3900d1a4d0dbf92d1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Pryor Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 00:00:58 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] coroutines tweak Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- coroutines_and_aborts.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/coroutines_and_aborts.mdwn b/coroutines_and_aborts.mdwn index 2ab78763..c56c67cd 100644 --- a/coroutines_and_aborts.mdwn +++ b/coroutines_and_aborts.mdwn @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ These snapshots are called **continuations** because they represent how the comp You can think of them as functions that represent "how the rest of the computation proposes to continue." Except that, once we're able to get our hands on those functions, we can do exotic and unwholesome things with them. Like use them to suspend and resume a thread. Or to abort from deep inside a sub-computation: one function might pass the command to abort *it* to a subfunction, so that the subfunction has the power to jump directly to the outside caller. Or a function might *return* its continuation function to the outside caller, giving *the outside caller* the ability to "abort" the function (the function that has already returned its value---so what should happen then?) Or we may call the same continuation function *multiple times* (what should happen then?). All of these weird and wonderful possibilities await us. -The key idea behind working with continuations is that we're *inverting control*. In the fragment above, the code `(if x = 1 then ... else snapshot 20) + 100` which is written so as to supply a value to the outside context that we snapshotted itself *makes non-trivial use of* that snapshot. So it has to be able to refer to that snapshot; the snapshot has to somehow be available to our inner code as an *argument* or bound variable. That is: the cde that is *written* like it's supplying an argument to the outside context is instead *getting that context as its own argument*. He who is written as value-supplying slave is instead become the outer context's master. +The key idea behind working with continuations is that we're *inverting control*. In the fragment above, the code `(if x = 1 then ... else snapshot 20) + 100`---which is written so as to supply a value to the outside context that we snapshotted---itself *makes non-trivial use of* that snapshot. So it has to be able to refer to that snapshot; the snapshot has to somehow be available to our inner code as an *argument* or bound variable. That is: the cde that is *written* like it's supplying an argument to the outside context is instead *getting that context as its own argument*. He who is written as value-supplying slave is instead become the outer context's master. In fact you've already seen this several times this semester---recall how in our implementation of pairs in the untyped lambda-calculus, the handler who wanted to use the pair's components had *in the first place to be supplied to the pair as an argument*. So the exotica from the end of the seminar was already on the scene in some of our earliest steps. Recall also what we did with v2 and v5 lists. Version 5 lists were the ones that let us abort a fold early: go back and re-read the material on "Aborting a Search Through a List" in [[Week4]]. -- 2.11.0