Your ICFP 2001 submission #48 (fwd)

[Stephen Weeks]

> Here are the reviews of the contification paper.  Major points seem to be
> say a little more about how Moby really does its transformation, be
> careful about using "CPS", and discuss some other related work.  Reviewer
> #3 found some typos in the definition of the contification transformation
> (which I also came across a few weeks ago when I was rereading the paper).

Overall not too bad.  We need to think about the CPS problem.  I think two of
the reviewers are confused about CPS -- but, so are lots of people, and it's not
the point of this paper to educate them.  So, maybe we should make up a new IL
name and mention it's like CPS.  I was probably too motivated by consistency
with the IL names in the source code.

One other comment that I found interesting was the following:

> I believe that making all the continuation arguments explicit
> will show that the optimization can be generalized to eliminating
> constant arguments, whether continuations or not.

We should address this.

Also, does anyone have a pointer to lambda dropping?