On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 September 2014 19:25, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mark S. Miller wrote: >>> That's why, IIRC (haven't checked lately), TCO is only specified for calls >>> from non-sloppy functions. >> >> PTC (Proper Tail Calls), not TCO. It's confusing to equate the two, from >> what I know (corrections welcome0. > > Hm, people most often refer to "mandatory tail call > optimisation/elimination" when talking about a spec level requirement. > I have never seen "PTC" used in a formal context, let alone the > acronym.
Clinger's paper, which formalizes the concept, calls it "proper tail recursion" in the title, as does the R5RS Scheme standard. Since recursion isn't fundamental, though, proper tail calls seems more accurate. This terminology is used lots of places these days, such as the Lua docs and this (archive of a) post by Guy Steele: http://www.eighty-twenty.org/index.cgi/tech/oo-tail-calls-20111001.html Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
