On 11/12/2018 4:59 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 4:53 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
> I agree re: *explaining* the behavior in the browser. I don't necessarily agree that either side needs continuations in order to *implement* the behavior. Nor do I agree that persisted
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 4:53 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
> I agree re: *explaining* the behavior in the browser. I don't necessarily
> agree that either side needs continuations in order to *implement* the
> behavior. Nor do I agree that persisted continuations are the best way to do
> it.
>
On 11/12/2018 3:54 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 2:22 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> PS: Why do web-servers need CPS?
>
> In general they don't.
They need continuations, because BACK buttons, cloning of TABs and similar
actions force a control flow on interactive
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 2:22 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> PS: Why do web-servers need CPS?
>
> In general they don't.
They need continuations, because BACK buttons, cloning of TABs and similar
actions force a control flow on interactive web programs that is easily
explained and programmed
Thanks! Very informative! I have some more questions but I should
google them responsibly first☺️
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:52 PM George Neuner wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2018 10:45 AM, Rudi C wrote:
> > How is mutual recursion via a loop any better than mutual recursion
> > just by tail call
-- Forwarded message -
From: Rudi C
Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [racket-users] Does Racket support tail call elimination?
To: George Neuner
Thanks! Very informative! I have some more questions but I should
google them responsibly first☺️
On Mon, Nov
On 11/12/2018 10:45 AM, Rudi C wrote:
How is mutual recursion via a loop any better than mutual recursion
just by tail call elimination?
You can't necessarily turn recursion into a loop using only TCE.
TCE turns an ordinary call/return sequence into a non-returning jump [or
fall through
On 11/12/2018 5:52 AM, Rudi C wrote:
Does Racket support tail call elimination? I am not asking about just tail
recursion, but any tail calls. If not, how about mutual tail recursion (where
two functions keep tail callin each other, aka trampoline)?
Racket does tail call elimination [as
Please call it “proper implementation of tail calls (PITCH)”. The others got it
wrong.
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Philip McGrath wrote:
>
> As a descendant of Scheme, Racket has proper tail calls. Beyond that, in
> Racket, "there is no such thing as stack overflow; you can run out of
As a descendant of Scheme, Racket has proper tail calls. Beyond that, in
Racket, "there is no such thing as stack overflow; you can run out of
memory if a computation involves too much context, but exhausting memory
typically requires orders of magnitude deeper recursion than would trigger
a stack
Does Racket support tail call elimination? I am not asking about just tail
recursion, but any tail calls. If not, how about mutual tail recursion (where
two functions keep tail callin each other, aka trampoline)?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
11 matches
Mail list logo
