On Jan 20, 2008 8:01 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > > My concern with E (or A for that matter) is that it requires > > additional syntax. I'd prefer if we could keep the syntax small. I > > don't think implicit PTC is an issue. It is an optimization that the > > interpreter/compiler should do. What are the problems with I? It > > does not change the semantics of the language. > > Proper tails calls are not an optimization; they certainly do change > semantics, insofar as you can't write certain programs without them > being guaranteed.
I've been trying to find out how they are not an optimization. I haven't read anyone else that thinks they are not an optimization but I have read other people refer to them as an optimization. I think that from an application programmers point of view they are an optimization since the same program will run without proper tail calls if the computer has infinite resources. > I'll defer to Dave's 2005 LtU comment (he may have > newer ones he prefers), > > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/472#comment-3511 He only mentions that transforming non tail-call application code into tail-call application code is "a standard optimization technique" in a language that has proper tail calls. He doesn't mention whether or not proper tail calls in the language are to be considered a optimization. > which has useful links. Following one of those links leads to a wiki and the wiki has the following page which discusses proper tail calls as an optimization in the language http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TailCallOptimization Peter _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
