> On May 19, 2021, at 6:43 AM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
> . ..\ .
> This remember me something, tail call optimization is not the only
> optimization that avoid the stack to grow.
>
> If you have calls like
> g(a, () -> h(a, () -> f(a)))
>
> with 'a' being the same arguments, you can
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "amber-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 19 Mai 2021 13:12:43
> Objet: Re: Rehabilitating switch -- a scorecard
> So, here's another aspect of switches rehabilitation, this time in terms of
> syntactic rewrites. By way of analogy with lambdas, there's a sequence of
> x
So, here's another aspect of switches rehabilitation, this time in terms
of syntactic rewrites. By way of analogy with lambdas, there's a
sequence of
x -> e // parens elided in unary lambda
is-shorthand-for
(x) -> e // types elided
is-shorthand-for
- Mail original -
> De: "Guy Steele"
> À: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "Remi Forax" , "John Rose" ,
> "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Mardi 18 Mai 2021 21:33:45
> Objet: Re: [External] : Re: Rehabilitating switch -- a scorecard
>> On May 18, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>
>>
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "John Rose" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Mardi 18 Mai 2021 19:07:41
> Objet: Re: [External] : Re: Rehabilitating switch -- a scorecard
>> to fill the gap, we need
>> - _ as pattern equivalent to var _ + _ not be
