Calling again and continuing are not the same thing. Sure, with the above trivial example it is. But if the parent function has non idempotent code before calling the missing function (like doing some global change / side effects), then calling again will give a different result than just continuing from the current state.
So is it possible to define the missing function and continue from the same state in Python? I don't think so, but I'm not a heavy Python user (just for small/medium scripts).
>So is it possible to define the missing function and continue from the same state in Python? I don't think so, but I'm not a heavy Python user
This is a pointless debate - someone has to catch the exception, save caller registers, handle the exception (if there's a handler) or reraise. Either you have to do it (by putting a try except there) or your runtime has to be always defensively saving registers or something. Lisp isn't magic, it's just a point on trade-off curve and I have without a shadow of a doubt proven that that point is very close to python (wrt the repl). So okay maybe clisp has made some design decisions that make it a hair more effective at resuming than python. Cool I guess I'll just ignore all the other python features where there's parity or advantage because of this one thing /s.
I'll take this as an answer to my sibling comment that the answer is "No". I'm really sad CPython can't do that, but maybe some other Python can. It shouldn't necessarily be any slower for the interpreter to figure out where to jump to before saving the execution trace and jumping.
It's not "pointless", I was tearing out my hair and losing days because I couldn't do this in CPython. Yes, I'd much rather use Python than Common Lisp regardless.
So is it possible to define the missing function and continue from the same state in Python? I don't think so, but I'm not a heavy Python user (just for small/medium scripts).