[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb")
- From: Jay Carlson <nop@...>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:45:03 +0000
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Jay Carlson <nop@nop.com> wrote:
> Smalltalk-80 blocks resembled closures but were not first class
> values; they were stack-allocated.
I misremembered. This is not true, unless you want to think
"stack-allocated" is slang for "mostly tied to existing activation
records". ST-80's allocated activation records on the heap. Feh.
- References:
- A lua version of "amb", Xavier Wang
- special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb"), Jay Carlson
- Re: special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb"), Fabien
- Re: special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb"), Jay Carlson
- Re: special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb"), Fabien
- Re: special forms, take two (was Re: A lua version of "amb"), Jay Carlson
