On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 10:46:01 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
[...]
In contrast to what many folks expect, TCO is affecting
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 01:42:13 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 17:31:23 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:27:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
[...]
* It must not be ignorable by the compiler.
* It must generate an error if that compiler would
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 16:27:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
[...]
* It must not be ignorable by the compiler.
* It must generate an error if that compiler would be unable to
do the TCO. Otherwise, the compiler *may* (not "must") apply
the TCO, unless compiled under (some optimization
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:48:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 15:27:54 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
I've been thinking about changing @tco for @boundedStack, as
it'll really reflect guarantees on functions while implicitly
asking for TCO on functions that
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:36:22 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 10:25:36 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 13:15:38 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Btw here's a thread from 2014 that touches on the idea of a
"tailrec" annotation. At the time, Walter viewed
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:16:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:10:32 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Annotating every callsite seems uncomfortable, being able to
perform TCO is a property of the function and not something
that might look call-site dependant.
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:52:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 12:01:54 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:59:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:44:22 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, there is no cure for poor skills, but the point is to
prevent the need to avoid recursion to ensure there are no
stack overflows. It seems reasonable considering D
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:17:08 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
there can't be any
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 06:18:41 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:55:50 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Yes, it probably does TCO. The problem is what if you think it
does and it cannot do it because of a misunderstanding on when
it can be applied or a bug?
Then file a
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:24:49 UTC, A.B wrote:
On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 05:03:46 UTC, Dietrich Daroch wrote:
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to
ensure TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also
Hi everyone (=
I've just added a new proposal to add a new attribute to ensure
TCO is applied.
The proposal is really simple, but I'm clueless on how to
implement it and also interested on getting feedback on it.
The proposal it's ready for merge on the new [DIPs
13 matches
Mail list logo
