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