Re: Why no tail calls from generators?

2016-10-12 Thread Bergi 

Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:


What is the rationale for explicitly disallowing PTC in generators?  (Or,
in the case of proposals like STC, why not allow users to opt in to TCO in
generator bodies?)


I'd guess that generator functions are already complicated enough, and 
the `next()` call that at least has to wrap the result in `{value: …, 
done:true}` would always have to stay on the stack.
However, it would be possible to do tail-recursive calls in generator 
functions via


return yield* f(…)

Kind regards,
 Bergi

___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Why no tail calls from generators?

2016-10-12 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz 
Hi!  I tried searching the archives and a bit around the Web, but couldn't
find a place where this was written down; I may just need a pointer.

What is the rationale for explicitly disallowing PTC in generators?  (Or,
in the case of proposals like STC, why not allow users to opt in to TCO in
generator bodies?)

Specifically, I'm referring to step 5 in IsInTailPosition that returns
false (
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#sec-isintailposition)
if the body is a generator body.

Thanks!
Joe P
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss