I quite like the concept of contexts, I just wish they were implicit rather than explicit. The idea of a function taking place in a dynamic context makes perfe

I quite like the concept of contexts, I just wish they were implicit rather than explicit. The idea of a function taking place in a dynamic context makes perfect sense (because, after all, it does); the only thing which doesn't really make sense is having to pass it along by hand. Imagine how terrible it would be if we had to explicitly pass the return stack everywhere[0]! It needs to 'infect' (as you put it) everything because it needs to pervade everything, so a library can pass it through to anything it calls. This is a good argument for making it implicit. > And it includes an untyped key-value store implemented as a linked-list of pairs (!!!!), because why not? That is just a cons chain, famous for example as the foundation of the Lisp programming language, and there is nothing wrong with it. Note that it is unfair to say that it is untyped: the values themselves are strongly typed, and the cells too are typed — interface{} (or T in Lisp terms) is still a type! A cons chain has advantages for inheritance of values in a DAG of calls. It is not necessarily the most efficient, but simplicity is a virtue. 0: Continuation-passing style is both really powerful and well-nigh unreadable, for a reason.