Re: "Stackless" XEmacs?

Their web material isn't very clear, but I'm assuming that's because they don't use a stack representation for continuations (i.e. what most people just call "the stack" in traditional implementations). In particular, heap-based and partially heap-based implementations of continuations have much lower space and time costs for things like threads. Will Clinger's paper contains a good survey: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5808n962434j275/fulltext.pdf (Most Scheme implementations, as they have to support `call-with-current-continuation', also use an implementation strategy for continuations other than pure stacks.)