<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Based on the preceding paragraph, I think that by “abuse” it means overuse, as in using CPS when you could have used straightforward code. I can imagine someone doing at the source code level the sort of things that would be done by a CPS-based compiler (converting everything possible to CPS), and ending up with a mess.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, imagine you started with this code snippet:</div><div><br></div><div> let x = f a</div><div> y = g x</div><div> in h x y</div><div><br></div><div>If you fully convert that to CPS you’d end up with 3 continuations (I think) and it would be much harder to understand. And adding an additional let binding later might involve a bunch of restructuring.</div><div><br></div><div>I assume it just means that sort of thing. When someone first learns about continuations and their generality, it can be tempting to go overboard.</div><div><br></div><div>Jeff</div><div><br>On Aug 31, 2021, at 3:03 AM, YueCompl via Haskell-Cafe <<a href="mailto:haskell-cafe@haskell.org">haskell-cafe@haskell.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">Dear Cafe,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm wrapping up my CPS codebase to provide some monadic interface, it appears almost the Cont monad, so the following statement is a pretty valid caveat to me now:<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">> <span style="color: rgb(232, 230, 227); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: rgb(24, 26, 27); text-decoration-thickness: initial;" class="">Abuse of the Continuation monad can produce code that is impossible to understand and maintain.</span><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Which can be viewed in context of Hackage at: <a href="https://hackage.haskell.org/package/mtl/docs/Control-Monad-Cont.html#:~:text=Abuse of the Continuation monad can produce code that is impossible to understand and maintain" class="">https://hackage.haskell.org/package/mtl/docs/Control-Monad-Cont.html#:~:text=Abuse%20of%20the%20Continuation%20monad%20can%20produce%20code%20that%20is%20impossible%20to%20understand%20and%20maintain</a> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I can't find concrete examples demonstrating the "impossible to understand and maintain" situation, in figuring out what pitfalls I'd rather to avoid.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please share what you know about it, many appreciations!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Background of my CPS necessarity: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Library code need to delegate STM transaction boundary delimitation to (scripting) application code, though `inlineSTM :: STM a -> m a` can be used to force some action to be within current tx, the usual `>>=` binding should honor whether a separate `atomically` tx should be issued for its rhs computation, as specified by the scripting context.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Compl</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Haskell-Cafe mailing list</span><br><span>To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:</span><br><span><a href="http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a></span><br><span>Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.</span></div></blockquote></body></html>