It wasn't just a thinko, but I'm actually happier with MUST. Fixed. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> 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 > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
