Content deleted Content added
Line 79:
::*EVALUATE!UNINTERRUPTEDLY ''versus'' message arrival ordering
::This is what "'''Hewitt is flaming about.'''" [Sussman and Steele 1976] But now, on the basis of no evidence, you claim that the controversy never happened.[[Special:Contributions/99.29.247.230|99.29.247.230]] ([[User talk:99.29.247.230|talk]]) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Both of the above were part of the general controversy caused by the Sussman and Steele thesis that Actors were merely the lambda calculus in disguise. Another instance of the controversy was whether Actor customers (continuations) are lambda expression closures. [http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab-pubs/AIM-379.pdf Steele (1976)] in the secton "Actors ≡ Closures (mod Syntax)" disagreed with Hewitt who "expressed doubt as to whether these underlying continuations can themselves be expressed as lambda expressions." However, Actor customers cannot be expressed as lambda expressions because doing so would preclude being able to enforce the Actor requirment that a customer will process at most one return value.[[Special:Contributions/68.170.178.152|68.170.178.152]] ([[User talk:68.170.178.152|talk]]) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
| |||