Re: frame theory, was pointer madness

Jim Blandy
2006-01-26T23:39:21Z

On 1/26/06, Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> wrote:
> this paragraph, and 2) Daniel got it backwards too when he said:
>
> >The innermost frame is always #0; it is the first frame "unwound"
> >from the sentinel frame. Then the next frame is unwound from frame 0.
>
> He should have said "the PREVIOUS frame is unwound from frame 0".

Or, as Jason has pointed out to me, probably Daniel meant "the next
frame" in the sense of "the next frame to be constructed", which is
perfectly correct. But I do think it's ambiguous.