On 30 September 2014 16:31, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
Interesting, good to know. Thanks for the clarification. (Still wondering what improper tail calls would be.) /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
