Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote: >> interview done with Guido van Rossum >> >>

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

Right ... it's about "growable stack languages" or "infinite stack languages" or "heapful languages" or something like that. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman > wrote:

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman > wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote: > interview done with Guido van Rossum > > http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html Guys, this

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote: > interview done with Guido van Rossum http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html Related: lexical scope is interesting *theoretically*, but its inefficient to > implement; dynamic scope

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > [...] Their implementors will argue that deep recursions don’t exist or > shouldn’t be supported. [...] Python's argument for not supporting tail-call optimization (if I should call it that way after this

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

As some have pointed out downstream from here, SML is definitely a language that does it (but see Appel’s articles on why stacks are superfluous from years ago and weep). I suspect that all faithful Scheme implementations get close or satisfy this property. But as others have mentioned,

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

Greetings. On 25 Apr 2017, at 23:51, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: In answer to your actual question, the most common name is “Tail Call Optimization,” which many people correctly object to because it’s not an optimization, it’s a change to the meaning of terms in the language

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

Ah, lucky you. This is not a "stack overflow". This is a "all of memory overflow". The cool thing about racket is that there is not separate limit on some mysterious PL-internal data structure called a "stack". Robby On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:13 PM Matthew Butterick wrote: > >

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:37 PM, brendan wrote: > Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket > goes further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position > without fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:05 PM, brendan wrote: > > Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not > the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer. > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:53:59 PM UTC-4, Robby Findler wrote: >> I think the

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:05 PM, brendan wrote: > > Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not > the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer. Forgive me. In that case, I’m not sure exactly what property it is you’re looking for a name

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer. On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:53:59 PM UTC-4, Robby Findler wrote: > I think the question is about non-tail calls and limits on them.  > > > Robby > > > > On Tue,

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

I think the question is about non-tail calls and limits on them. Robby On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:52 PM 'John Clements' via Racket Users < racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:37 PM, brendan wrote: > > > > Scheme implementations are required to

Re: [racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:37 PM, brendan wrote: > > Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket > goes further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position > without fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st

[racket-users] Proper non-tail recursion?

Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket goes further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position without fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century and stack overflows should not be a thing. My questions are: Is there a name