Time to rename Stackless?

[Boris^2]

Courageous wrote:

>>>It is still stackless in the sense that order of execution is not
>>>restricted by the C stack.
>>>
>>Even so, I still think it's a poor name, because it
>>focuses on an implementation detail rather than
>>telling you what it can do for you.


Imho, matters of stacks can't quite pass as a marginal detail for a 
programmer. Or if they are assumed to, then an ad-hoc parable might 
serve as interface, e.g. "stack" freed from the programmers' context 
evokes the stack of money or equivalent tokens, and hence "stackless" 
may refer to accessing the Father's Realm through the proverbial 
camel-stopping pinhole :)


> meanwhile, most of the people that care about
> Stacklessness and continuations are hardcore computer
> science junkies, folks who've been exposed to some fairly
> obscure languages (sorry, scheme guys!),


Your use of "obscure" I find obscurantist (and I am really no "scheme 
guy" by any stretch of imagination).

Boris
--
filter(lambda W : W not in "ILLITERATE","BULLSHIT")