14:20: #(2002 6 15 14 10)

I wonder how many uses of @paste are optimal, or even valid.

[7d2.6.0f-00: meta-source]

[Reply]

23:12: #(0x7d2 6 12)

Stroustrup seems really annoying. In the C++ Style and Technique FAQ, he #{writes:}#

Why can't I resume after catching an exception?

In other words, why doesn't C++ provide a primitive for returning to the point from which an exception was thrown and continuing execution from there?

Basically, someone resuming from an exception handler can never be sure that the code after the point of throw was written to deal with the excecution just continuing as if nothing had happened. An exception handler cannot know how much context to "get right" before resuming. To get such code right, the writer of the throw and the writer of the catch need intimate knowledge of each others code and context.

Why is that? Is it because this is some innate universal truth, or is it just because that's the way that C++ is designed (which would reduce the reason to `C++ doesn't have continuable exceptions because C++ doesn't have continuable exceptions')? Gotta love his frequent `if you want to know the answer, buy my book!' pseudo-answers, too....

He does provide a link to a discussion-log in which he (of course) says, `buy my book!', but also quotes from the book, which states, basically, that experience has demonstrated continuation-semantics to be un-necessary and continuation-implementations to be slow. So, the conclusion is that, if something is slow and not necessary, it should not be included in C++. Funny.

[7d2.6.0c-00: meta-source]

[Reply]

16:40: #(2002 6 11 16 36)

This ttn is an interesting fellow....

[7d2.6.0b-02: meta-source]

[Reply]

12:33: #(2002 6 11 1 15)

Hmm. The basis that `1 + 1 = 2' is apparently just that `.\ x = x + 1' is defined as meaning `the successor of x', for some arbitrary definition of `successor'. Sums using natural numbers other than 1 are found by inverting this function and applying it recursively until the number with which we are working is one.

I suppose that, at the heart of this, there is the presumption that one cannot `make new numbers', but that, rather, there is an infinite series of numbers (why would one need to make more, if one already has an infinite number of them?), and the `+1' function is just cadr.

Gee, maybe those set-theoretical guys are onto something....

And maybe it's time for sleep....

[7d2.6.0b-00: meta-source]

[Reply]

12:29: #(2000 6 11 12 30)

Borscht is so good.

[7d2.6.0b-01: meta-source]

[Reply]