When I asked Rebol Tech about tail-recursion some time ago, that was what they told me. And that they wanted it back, too, but only for functions that need it. So maybe we'll at some time see a function argument [recursive], or the like, regards, Ingo Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]: <...> > REBOL 1.0 was tail recursive, and it was SLOW. This is because, as > Joe Marshall expalined to me, handling tail recursion is not an > easy thing to do. I'd like to see tail recursion back in REBOL, > but I'm not sure if I'd want the complexity of the interpreter to > increase. I'd prefer a better solution, such as testing for tail > recursion only on function that require it: > > f: tail-recursive-func [...] [...] > > Regards, > Gabriele. > -- > o--------------------) .-^-. (----------------------------------o > | Gabriele Santilli / /_/_\_\ \ Amiga Group Italia --- L'Aquila | > | GIESSE on IRC \ \-\_/-/ / http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/ | > o--------------------) `-v-' (----------------------------------o > > Hi Rebols, regards, Ingo -- _ . _ ingo@)|_ /| _| _ <We ARE all ONE www._|_o _ _ ._ _ www./_|_) |o(_|(/_ We ARE all FREE> ingo@| |(_|o(_)| (_| http://www.2b1.de/Rebol/ ._| ._|
