On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:04 +0100, Chris Pine wrote: > It was agreed that implementations would always be free to implement > PTC...
Really? That wasn't the impression I got. My understanding is that if PTC isn't a requirement, it should not exist. As a programmer, I don't want to need to keep track of whether which implementations support my programming style. Do we really want "ES4" and "Stackless ES4" (for example)? Peter Michaux put it nicely when he said: > If there are no requirements for proper tail calls then they cannot be > depended upon and are useless. Portability is a huge requirement for me, and if there's a valid reason for leaving PTC out of an implementation history shows that someone will. Cheers, -- Nathan de Vries PS: What's the go with everyone including long lists of CCs? Isn't everyone here on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
