Content deleted Content added
Line 91:
''(From section 2.8 Scheme 1975–1985.)'' -- [[User:Tobias Bergemann|Tobias Bergemann]] 13:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:: This statement is indeed correct, but nevertheless, I still think it is misleading (and revisionist) to mention the actor model in the second sentence. It's fine to mention it, but in a more nuanced history section further down, where other relevant ancestors are also mentioned. Particularly, since no mention is made in the intro on continuations, which is really the essential point of why scheme was developed to understand actors, as is evident a few lines down from the quote you provided:
:::''Functional interactions were modeled with the use of continuations; one might send the actor named “factorial” the number 5 and another actor to which to send the eventually computed value (presumably 120).''
:: Continuations as first-class objects is one of the distinguishing characteristics of scheme.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
| |||