Agreed. Should be "must." Dave
On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
