Content deleted Content added
Hewitt's version of the history was published in an article at ArXiv 0907.3330 |
|||
Line 81:
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)
==Hewitt's version of the history was published in an article at ArXiv 0907.3330==
Hewitt's version of the history was published in [http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3330 ActorScript<sup>TM</sup>: Industrial strength integration of local and nonlocal concurrency for Client-cloud Computing] arXiv:0907.3330 [[Special:Contributions/98.210.236.39|98.210.236.39]] ([[User talk:98.210.236.39|talk]]) 11:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |||