Re: continuation efficiency

[Marius Vollmer]

address@hidden (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Actually, I think we should have call/ec as a builtin.  
> 
> If call/ec is not already a builtin, how is it actually faster than
> call/cc?

It uses a different algorithm.  Right now, it needs to be implemented
in terms of catch/throw, but I'd say that it should be the other way
around, catch/throw should be implemented in terms of call/ec, and
call/ec is mostly like call/cc except that it skips the expensive bits
and makes sure that this doesn't hurt you.

On top of that, I'm also thinking about a more deeper semantic
difference between call/cc and call/ec, which is not motivated by
performance but by, ahem, `amateur language design'.  See my other
response.