Thanks for catching this, it goes back to http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proper_tail_calls&rev=1273414092 (first rev). Cc'ing Mark. I bet it is just a thinko for MUST and we can fix it quickly.
/be On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proper_tail_calls > > I notice that in the proper tail calls wiki page that a compliant > interpreter "SHOULD implement a call in proper tail position as a > PTC." In order for a programmer to use proper tail calls for > arbitrarily deep recursion, the programmer needs a guarantee that the > interpreter will use proper tail calls. This would mean the "SHOULD" > needs to be a "MUST". Otherwise what does the proper tail calls > proposal gain the programmer? > > For example, R5RS has much stronger language compared with "SHOULD" > about Scheme using proper tail calls. > > "Implementations of Scheme are required to be properly tail recursive." > > With that language the programmer using Scheme can then depend on that > feature. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
