Jordan, I agree that this architectural discussion doesn't need to be a part of the enhancement request.
-Conrad On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard <j...@apple.com> wrote: > I have to say - Trac seems to be a rather bad way of having architectural > discussions. I've been having a hard time even understanding who says what > for the last 2-3 rounds of comments. Wouldn't this be a better sort of > discussion to have on the -devel mailing list, then distilling the action > items (if any) into the Trac bug? > > Just a thought... Happy New Year everyone! > > - Jordan > > On Dec 31, 2009, at 8:23 PM, MacRuby wrote: > > > #528: Improve Tail Call Elimination > > > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- > > Reporter: haruki.zae...@… | Owner: lsansone...@… > > Type: enhancement | Status: new > > Priority: minor | Milestone: > > Component: MacRuby | Keywords: tail call > elimination optimisation tco > > > -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- > > > > Comment(by haruki.zae...@…): > > > > Replying to [comment:7 conra...@…]: > >> If you need tail call optimization, then you're definitely concerned > > about the wasteful calls because the goal of tail call optimization is to > > transform > >> recursive alogithm into iterative algorithm. > > > > The aim of TCO is to allow recursive algorithms to perform within a > > constrained stack frame. Whether you choose to implement this as re- > > writing the algorithm iteratively or instead throwing away the stack > frame > > is a choice. > > > >> I guess that you're looking for something automatically done with > > MacRuby VM. > > > > I don't mind if it's explicit :) > > > >> It's still your requirement to implement the appropriate traversal > > algorithm for the data set that you're operating on. In short, one > should > > use the best algorithm for the job and not rely so heavily on what's > > happening within the language's internals. > > > > And I have, twice: once recursively; then again iteratively actually make > > it perform. The former being MUCH simpler, the latter being horribly > > complex. > > > > I I'm not accusing MacRuby of being flawed, I'm merely suggesting that, > as > > per the links posted, OO algorithms and data structures can be greatly > > improved by languages that support TCO. Yes, it's possible to write > > complex algorithms without TCO; it's also much easier to write them with > > it. > > > > -- > > Ticket URL: <http://www.macruby.org/trac/ticket/528#comment:9> > > MacRuby <http://macruby.org/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MacRuby-devel mailing list > > MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org > > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel > > _______________________________________________ > MacRuby-devel mailing list > MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel >
_______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
