On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM, verec <jeanfrancois.brouil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > At about 72:54 of the clojure sequence talk, Rich explains that he > doesn't want to provide "false guaranties" to people used to "true > tail calls" even though he could detect such "tail position calls" and > basically transforms them into what recur currently does. > > I'm just curious about examples where such a "magic transformation" > would result in violated assumptions.
When they don't apply. As I understand things, this magic transformation would have you think that clojure has true TCO, when the tail-call -> recur transformation in reality only works for self-recurvise functions, and breaks down in the case of mutual recursion. > > If the detection of the tail call position is not too involved, (after > all, detecting that recur is in tail position seems simpler than > detecting that an arbitrary function call is) I fail to see what the > problem is. > > Anyone cares to elaborate? > > Many Thanks > > > -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
