This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 39 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 39 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:37:43 -0500 From: Marc Feeley <feeley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Like Olin I think there is nesting. It is not a nesting of control but rather a nesting of dynamic context. Can you define 'dynamic context'? Why doesn't it include the dynamic-wind state? Having dynamic-wind's notion of dynamic state is complicated enough. Adding another seems baroque. I can understand having threads inherit the dynamic state of their spawning thread (which is not to say that I would like it), but only if the entire dynamic state is inherited. In a previous message Michael Sperber pointed out that the effect of DELAY on the dynamic environment is not specified by the SRFI. This is an oversight. For consistency with make-thread, the body of the DELAY must also inherit the dynamic environment of DELAY's continuation. [...] This makes sense if you view the DELAY form as an annotation indicating only that the computation is to be delayed. You don't want the computation to be different, you simply want to displace it in time. That is one way to view DELAY, but certainly not the only one. I might want the computation to be run later precisely because it will produce a different answer then. And if it is supposed to produce the same answer shouldn't it close over the store as well? It seems unnecessarily complex to make DELAY close over more than LAMBDA does. -Richard