Search Results

Search found 7 results on 1 pages for 'callcc'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • How the yin-yang puzzle works?

    - by Hrundik
    I'm trying to grasp the semantics of call/cc in Scheme, and the Wikipedia page on continuations shows the yin-yang puzzle as an example: (let* ((yin ((lambda (cc) (display #\@) cc) (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) c)))) (yang ((lambda (cc) (display #\*) cc) (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) c)))) ) (yin yang)) It should output @\*@\**@\**\*@\**\**@..., but I don't understand why; I'd expect it to output @\*@\**\**\**\**\*... Can somebody explain in detail why the yin-yang puzzle works the way it works?

    Read the article

  • call/cc in Lua - Possible?

    - by Pessimist
    The Wikipedia article on Continuation says: "In any language which supports closures, it is possible to write programs in continuation passing style and manually implement call/cc." Either that is true and I need to know how to do it or it is not true and that statement needs to be corrected. If this is true, please show me how to implement call/cc in Lua because I can't see how. I think I'd be able to implement call/cc manually if Lua had the coroutine.clone function as explained here. If closures are not enough to implement call/cc then what else is needed? The text below is optional reading. P.S.: Lua has one-shot continuations with its coroutine table. A coroutine.clone function would allow me to clone it to call it multiple times, thus effectively making call/cc possible (unless I misunderstand call/cc). However that cloning function doesn't exist in Lua. Someone on the Lua IRC channel suggested that I use the Pluto library (it implements serialization) to marshal a coroutine, copy it and then unmarshal it and use it again. While that would probably work, I am more interested in the theoretical implementation of call/cc and in finding what is the actual minimum set of features that a language needs to have in order to allow for its manual implementation.

    Read the article

  • Continuation (call/cc) in Scheme

    - by darkie15
    Hi All, I need to understand Continuations in Scheme for my upcoming exams and I have no idea about continuations at all. Can anyone please suggest me sources of how to go about learning continuations? Regards, darkie

    Read the article

  • Can continuations be used as a replacement for recursion?

    - by Sam
    The following function generates a 'stack level too deep (SystemStackError)' for n = 5,000 def factorial(n) n == 0 ? 1 : factorial(n -1) * n end Is there a way to avoid this error using continuations/callcc? Note: I know this can be implemented without recursion. e.g. def factorial2(n) (1..n).inject(1) {|result, n| result * n } end

    Read the article

  • Continuation monad "interface"

    - by sdcvvc
    The state monad "interface" class MonadState s m where get :: m s put :: s -> m () (+ return and bind) allows to construct any possible computation with State monad without using State constructor. For example, State $ \s -> (s+1, s-1) can be written as do s <- get put (s-1) return (s+1) Similarily, I never have to use Reader constructor, because I can create that computation using ask, return and (>>=). Precisely: Reader f == ask >>= return . f. Is it the same true for continuations - is it possible to write all instances of Cont r a using callCC (the only function in MonadCont), return and bind, and never type something like Cont (\c -> ...)?

    Read the article

  • What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?

    - by Lennart Regebro
    There is a lot of discussions of Python vs Ruby, and I all find them completely unhelpful, because they all turn around why feature X sucks in language Y, or that claim language Y doesn't have X, although in fact it does. I also know exactly why I prefer Python, but that's also subjective, and wouldn't help anybody choosing, as they might not have the same tastes in development as I do. It would therefore be interesting to list the differences, objectively. So no "Python's lambdas sucks". Instead explain what Ruby's lambdas can do that Python's can't. No subjectivity. Example code is good! Don't have several differences in one answer, please. And vote up the ones you know are correct, and down those you know are incorrect (or are subjective). Also, differences in syntax is not interesting. We know Python does with indentation what Ruby does with brackets and ends, and that @ is called self in Python. UPDATE: This is now a community wiki, so we can add the big differences here. Ruby has a class reference in the class body In Ruby you have a reference to the class (self) already in the class body. In Python you don't have a reference to the class until after the class construction is finished. An example: class Kaka puts self end self in this case is the class, and this code would print out "Kaka". There is no way to print out the class name or in other ways access the class from the class definition body in Python. All classes are mutable in Ruby This lets you develop extensions to core classes. Here's an example of a rails extension: class String def starts_with?(other) head = self[0, other.length] head == other end end Ruby has Perl-like scripting features Ruby has first class regexps, $-variables, the awk/perl line by line input loop and other features that make it more suited to writing small shell scripts that munge text files or act as glue code for other programs. Ruby has first class continuations Thanks to the callcc statement. In Python you can create continuations by various techniques, but there is no support built in to the language. Ruby has blocks With the "do" statement you can create a multi-line anonymous function in Ruby, which will be passed in as an argument into the method in front of do, and called from there. In Python you would instead do this either by passing a method or with generators. Ruby: amethod { |here| many=lines+of+code goes(here) } Python: def function(here): many=lines+of+code goes(here) amethod(function) Interestingly, the convenience statement in Ruby for calling a block is called "yield", which in Python will create a generator. Ruby: def themethod yield 5 end themethod do |foo| puts foo end Python: def themethod(): yield 5 for foo in themethod: print foo Although the principles are different, the result is strikingly similar. Python has built-in generators (which are used like Ruby blocks, as noted above) Python has support for generators in the language. In Ruby you could use the generator module that uses continuations to create a generator from a block. Or, you could just use a block/proc/lambda! Moreover, in Ruby 1.9 Fibers are, and can be used as, generators. docs.python.org has this generator example: def reverse(data): for index in range(len(data)-1, -1, -1): yield data[index] Contrast this with the above block examples. Python has flexible name space handling In Ruby, when you import a file with require, all the things defined in that file will end up in your global namespace. This causes namespace pollution. The solution to that is Rubys modules. But if you create a namespace with a module, then you have to use that namespace to access the contained classes. In Python, the file is a module, and you can import its contained names with from themodule import *, thereby polluting the namespace if you want. But you can also import just selected names with from themodule import aname, another or you can simply import themodule and then access the names with themodule.aname. If you want more levels in your namespace you can have packages, which are directories with modules and an __init__.py file. Python has docstrings Docstrings are strings that are attached to modules, functions and methods and can be introspected at runtime. This helps for creating such things as the help command and automatic documentation. def frobnicate(bar): """frobnicate takes a bar and frobnicates it >>> bar = Bar() >>> bar.is_frobnicated() False >>> frobnicate(bar) >>> bar.is_frobnicated() True """ Python has more libraries Python has a vast amount of available modules and bindings for libraries. Python has multiple inheritance Ruby does not ("on purpose" -- see Ruby's website, see here how it's done in Ruby). It does reuse the module concept as a sort of abstract classes. Python has list/dict comprehensions Python: res = [x*x for x in range(1, 10)] Ruby: res = (0..9).map { |x| x * x } Python: >>> (x*x for x in range(10)) <generator object <genexpr> at 0xb7c1ccd4> >>> list(_) [0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81] Ruby: p = proc { |x| x * x } (0..9).map(&p) Python: >>> {x:str(y*y) for x,y in {1:2, 3:4}.items()} {1: '4', 3: '16'} Ruby: >> Hash[{1=>2, 3=>4}.map{|x,y| [x,(y*y).to_s]}] => {1=>"4", 3=>"16"} Python has decorators Things similar to decorators can be created in Ruby, and it can also be argued that they aren't as necessary as in Python.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1