>Was it Ingo who mentioned that tail recursion had been removed from the
>current REBOL implementation and asked when it would be returned? That
>should take care of the stack overflow problem. The problem is a result of
>an incomplete implementation of REBOL (missing tail recursion) and I don't
>think it makes a good argument regarding the degree to which REBOL supports
>functional programming.
>
>Elan
If I've comprehended that correctly, a good language should eliminate tail
recursion and replace it by iteration. This is a feature of most CommonLISP
systems and Scheme.
After all, recursion is more expensive than iteration and should be avoided
whenever possible, and its always possible if the function calls are proper
tail-recursive.
Greetings,
Erich
