Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!news
From: Charles Fiterman <cef@geodesic.com>
Subject: Re: continuation-passing models of backtracking
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ford.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DBI48o.D2p@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: Geodesic Systems
References: <DBEsDE.Jtp@ida.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:02:48 GMT
Lines: 10
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.prolog:13446 comp.lang.misc:22252

In article <DBEsDE.Jtp@ida.liu.se>, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@ida.liu.se> wrote:
>I am trying to trace the history of the use of continuations in
>modeling backtracking control flow, esp. for languages like Prolog.
>
Leda and Icon both have continuations with a reasonable syntax. I like
Icon the best. A function can suspend rather than return. In syspending
it returns a value but allows backtracking. The Icon model of backtracking
is far better than the Prolog one.


