{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014405762304921969, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.513513513513513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Executing continuation semantics: A comparison

Several authors have suggested translating denotational semantics into prototype interpreters written in high‐level programming languages to provide evaluation tools for language designers. These implementations have generally been understandable when restricted to direct denotational semantics. This paper considers using two declarative programming languages, Prolog and Standard ML, to implement an interpreter that follows the continuation semantics of a small imperative programming language, called Gull. Each of the two declarative languages presents certain difficulties related to evaluation strategies and expressiveness. The implementations are compared in terms of their ease of use for prototyping, their resemblance to the denotational definitions, and their efficiency.