Browse Source

explainations->explanations. scheme->Scheme(proper noun)

merge-requests/31/head
Ethan Willis 3 years ago
parent
commit
d1e2168446
  1. 8
      goblins/scribblings/api.scrbl

8
goblins/scribblings/api.scrbl

@ -32,12 +32,12 @@
Goblins implements the
@link["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model"]{actor model}
on top of Racket / scheme.@actors-note{
on top of Racket / Scheme.@actors-note{
Sussman and Steele famously came to the conclusion that there was in
fact no difference between actor-style message passing and procedure
application in the lambda calculus, and indeed both are similar.
However, there is a significant difference between synchronous
call-and-return procedure application (which is what scheme implements
call-and-return procedure application (which is what Scheme implements
in its most general form, and between actors in Goblins is handled
by @racket[$]) and asynchronous message passing (which in Goblins
is handled with @racket[<-]).}
@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ Goblins' extensions to these ideas are:
@link["http://www.erights.org/"]{E}-style promise approach.
It could be that coroutines are re-added, but would have to be done
with extreme care; section 18.2 of that same thesis for an
explaination of the challenges and a possible solution for
explanation of the challenges and a possible solution for
introducing coroutines.}}
@item{Raw message passing without a clear way to get values back can
be painful.
@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Goblins' extensions to these ideas are:
The kind of value that promises give us can be constructed manually
by providing return addresses to @racket[<-np], but this is painful
given how common needing to operate on the result of an operation is.}}
@item{Goblins composes with all the existing machinery of Racket/scheme,
@item{Goblins composes with all the existing machinery of Racket/Scheme,
including normal procedure calls.
Instead, Goblins builds its abstractions on top of it, but none of this
needs to be thrown away.@actors-note{

Loading…
Cancel
Save