On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> interview done with Guido van Rossum
>>
>> http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html
Right ... it's about "growable stack languages" or "infinite stack
languages" or "heapful languages" or something like that.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Ben Greenman
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> interview done with Guido van Rossum
>
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html
Guys, this conversation is really not about PITCH per se.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> interview done with Guido van Rossum
http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html
Related:
lexical scope is interesting *theoretically*, but its inefficient to
> implement; dynamic scope is the fast choice
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
> [...] Their implementors will argue that deep recursions don’t exist or
> shouldn’t be supported. [...]
Python's argument for not supporting tail-call optimization (if I
should call it that way after this thread) is that it makes it f
As some have pointed out downstream from here, SML is definitely a language
that does it (but see Appel’s articles on why stacks are superfluous from years
ago and weep).
I suspect that all faithful Scheme implementations get close or satisfy this
property.
But as others have mentioned, man
Greetings.
On 25 Apr 2017, at 23:51, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
In answer to your actual question, the most common name is “Tail
Call Optimization,” which many people correctly object to because
it’s not an optimization, it’s a change to the meaning of terms in
the language
I'
Ah, lucky you. This is not a "stack overflow". This is a "all of memory
overflow". The cool thing about racket is that there is not separate limit
on some mysterious PL-internal data structure called a "stack".
Robby
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:13 PM Matthew Butterick wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 2017
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:37 PM, brendan wrote:
> Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket
> goes further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position
> without fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century and
> stack overflows
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:05 PM, brendan wrote:
>
> Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not
> the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer.
>
> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:53:59 PM UTC-4, Robby Findler wrote:
>> I think the question is about non-tail ca
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:05 PM, brendan wrote:
>
> Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not
> the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer.
Forgive me. In that case, I’m not sure exactly what property it is you’re
looking for a name for.
:)
John
--
Indeed; I should have clarified that I didn't mean only recursion per se. Not
the first time I've stumbled on that misnomer.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:53:59 PM UTC-4, Robby Findler wrote:
> I think the question is about non-tail calls and limits on them.
>
>
> Robby
>
>
>
> On Tue, Ap
I think the question is about non-tail calls and limits on them.
Robby
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:52 PM 'John Clements' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:37 PM, brendan wrote:
> >
> > Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recur
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:37 PM, brendan wrote:
>
> Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket
> goes further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position
> without fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century and
> stack overflow
Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket goes
further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position without
fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century and stack
overflows should not be a thing. My questions are: Is there a name
15 matches
Mail list logo
