# \`call-with-values\` vs. \`call-in-continuation\` **URL:** \ **Category:** Questions & Answers\ **Created:** [November 1, 2024, 3:05am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/call-with-values-vs-call-in-continuation/3285 "2024-11-01T03:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NoahStoryM](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/noahstorym/32/17_2.png) [@NoahStoryM](https://racket.discourse.group/u/NoahStoryM)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2024, 3:05am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/call-with-values-vs-call-in-continuation/3285/1 "2024-11-01T03:05:27Z")
Recently, while using `call-with-values` to invoke a continuation, I encountered unexpected high-performance costs. After further investigation, I found that `call-in-continuation` was actually the correct function to use in this context. From my current understanding, the difference between `call-with-values` and `call-in-continuation` lies in how they handle the continuation setup: - `(call-with-values thk k)` first evaluates `(thk)` to produce values, which are then passed as arguments to the receiver `k`. - `(call-in-continuation k thk)`, by contrast, sets `k` as the continuation before evaluating `(thk)`, so `thk` can capture `k` as its continuation throughout its computation. This distinction is significant when `(thk)`'s computation captures additional continuations, making `call-in-continuation` potentially more efficient in such scenarios. I am curious whether there are specific use cases where one might prefer `call-with-values` over `call-in-continuation`, assuming the receiver `k` is a continuation. Excluding performance considerations, my understanding is that both functions behave equivalently. Any insights on this would be greatly appreciated. I believe it would be helpful if the documentation for `call-with-values` included a note suggesting that `call-in-continuation` might be a better choice in cases where the receiver is a continuation.