stackless python

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Courageous <jkraska at san.rr.com>:
(quoting Christian Tismer)
|> No, I no longer think so.
|> It has to be shrunk down to the capabilities needed.
|> Having continuations where one-shot continuations (aka frames with
|> state) are sufficient is not healthy.
|> I've been thinking of this since a year now, and finally Guido
|> convinced me.
|
| It'll be misfortunate if all access to continuations goes away.
| Will your library at least allow the ability ot manipulate them
| through C extension functions? I would highly suggest that you
| offer this. It leaves continuation code to the experts and is
| highly dissuasive to the casual user, which would mean in practice
| very little of the labyrnthine code which use of continuations
| results in.

Eww, that sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.  Not only do
I lack your confidence in C coders, I find C modules quite a bit more
inscrutable.

I'm inclined to agree with him on as far as quoted above, though I'm
sure he has a more comprehensive sense of what "unhealthy" means.
The trick is defining what's really useful, and shrinking it to that.
If the result will work for nearly every practical use of continuations,
then it's a good deal, and of course by that standard there wouldn't be
any apparent reason to support more from C.

	Donn Cave, donn at drizzle.com