"CT" == Christian Tismer <tismer@appliedbiometrics.com> writes:
CT> What I want to achieve is that I can run this again, from my CT> snapshot. But with shared locals, my parameter x of the snapshot CT> would have changed to x+1, which I don't find useful. I want to CT> fix a state of the current frame and still think it should "own" CT> its locals. Globals are borrowed, anyway. Class instances will CT> anyway do what you want, since the local "self" is a mutable CT> object. CT> How do you want to keep computations independent when locals are CT> shared? For me it's just easier to implement and also to think CT> with the shallow copy. Otherwise, where is my private place? CT> Open for becoming convinced, of course :-) I think you're making things a lot more complicated by trying to instantiate new variable bindings for locals every time you create a continuation. Can you give an example of why that would be helpful? (Ok. I'm not sure I can offer a good example of why it would be helpful to share them, but it makes intuitive sense to me.) The call_cc mechanism is going to let you capture the current continuation, save it somewhere, and call on it again as often as you like. Would you get a fresh locals each time you used it? or just the first time? If only the first time, it doesn't seem that you've gained a whole lot. Also, all the locals that are references to mutable objects are already effectively shared. So it's only a few oddballs like ints that are an issue. Jeremy