In functional programming, continuation-passing style (CPS) is a style of programming in which control is passed explicitly in the form of a continuation. Gerald Jay Sussman and Guy L. Steele, Jr. coined the phrase in AI Memo 349 (1975), which sets out the first version of the Scheme programming language.
A function written in continuation-passing style takes an extra argument: an explicit "continuation" i.e. a function of one argument. When the CPS function has computed its result value, it "returns" it by calling the continuation function with this value as the argument. That means that when invoking a CPS function, the calling function is required to supply a procedure to be invoked with the subroutine's "return" value. Expressing code in this form makes a number of things explicit which are implicit in direct style. These include: procedure returns, which become apparent as calls to a continuation; intermediate values, which are all given names; order of argument evaluation, which is made explicit; and tail calls, which is simply calling a procedure with the same continuation, unmodified, that was passed to the caller.
Programs can be automatically transformed from direct style to CPS. Functional and logic compilers often use CPS as an intermediate representation where a compiler for an imperative or procedural programming language would use static single assignment form (SSA); however, SSA and CPS are equivalent. SSA is formally equivalent to a well-behaved subset of CPS (excluding non-local control flow, which does not occur when CPS is used as intermediate representation). Functional compilers can also use A-normal form (ANF) instead of or in conjunction with CPS. CPS is used more frequently by compilers than by programmers as a local or global style.
Read more about Continuation-passing Style: Examples, CPS and Tail Calls, Use and Implementation, Use in Other Fields
Famous quotes containing the word style:
“The authoritarian child-rearing style so often found in working-class families stems in part from the fact that parents see around them so many young people whose lives are touched by the pain and delinquency that so often accompanies a life of poverty. Therefore, these parents live in fear for their children’s future—fear that they’ll lose control, that the children will wind up on the streets or, worse yet, in jail.”
—Lillian Breslow Rubin (20th century)