On Dec 18, 4:46 pm, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tail-call optimization is not a pure optimization, as it changes the > > semantics in a fundamental way: It removes stack traces, which are > > part of both observable behaviour (stack traces) and the Java security > > architecture. Conversely, the lack of tail-call optimization when it > > is expected (or demanded by some [non-Java] language specification) > > means that a program that should run in finite memory will run out of > > stack. > > Indeed. We need to be careful to distinguish between tail-calling as > an optimization and proper tail calling as a language feature. We > also need, while I'm at it, to distinguish between mere tail recursion > and generalized tail calling. I've been hammering on these > terminological confusions lately; it's all too easy for people, even > people who know better, to write "TCO" when they mean "proper tail > calling". >
All points granted, but "proper" isn't that great either. Rich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
