From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-04-30T09:05:26+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyConf.new(2002) - ideas for agenda

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avi Bryant" <avi@beta4.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: RubyConf.new(2002) - ideas for agenda


[snip interesting comments]

Yes, if you want to do this first kind of thing, Ruby is 
not good, I think...

It amazes me that any language can handle this
situation. To me it sounds like changing a tire
without stopping the car.
 
> The second has to do with reification.  Everything (and I mean
> *everything*) in Smalltalk can be accessed and manipulated as
> Smalltalk objects.  The particular instance of this that was useful to
> me was the ability to manipulate stack frames: Seaside requires a
> particular variant of call/cc to do some cool but necessary magic (of
> which, more perhaps later).  Now, Smalltalk doesn't even have call/cc,
> in general, but I was able to implement it in about 10 lines of
> Smalltalk code because the stack was directly manipulatable.  If I
> were doing the same thing in Ruby I would have to write a fairly
> complex C module instead.

Maybe I'm off base here... could this be done with
continuations?

Hal Fulton