User loginNavigation 
How to remove a dynamic prompt: static and dynamic delimited continuation operators are equally expressible
The report (by Oleg Kiselyov) shows that shift, control, shift0, etc. delimited
continuation operators are macroexpressible in terms of each
other. The report thus confirms the result first established by
Chungchieh Shan in Shift to Control. The operators shift, control, control0, shift0 are the members of a single parameterized family, and the standard CPS is sufficient to express their denotational semantics.
The report uses a more uniform method and it formally proves that 'control' implemented via 'shift' indeed has its standard reduction semantics. It is common knowledge that firstclass continuations are quite tricky  and delimited continuations are trickier still. Therefore, a formal proof is a necessity. On the practical side, the report shows the simplest known Scheme implementations of control, shift0 and control0 (similar to `cupto'). The method in the report lets us design 700 more delimited control operators, which compose stack fragments in arbitrary ways. I love this sort of thing, and since section 4 includes Scheme code, you can try to skip the theory if you find it intimidating. I know this stuff can look a bit hairy. If there's interest, I hope Oleg would agree to help people new to this sort of material in understanding sections 2 and 3. But you have to ask nicely... 
Browse archivesActive forum topics

Recent comments
2 days 2 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
2 weeks 4 days ago
2 weeks 4 days ago
2 weeks 4 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago