proper tail calls

Nathan de Vries nathan at atnan.com
Thu Jan 24 15:38:47 PST 2008


On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:04 +0100, Chris Pine wrote:
> It was agreed that implementations would always be free to implement 
> PTC...

Really? That wasn't the impression I got. My understanding is that if
PTC isn't a requirement, it should not exist. As a programmer, I don't
want to need to keep track of whether which implementations support my
programming style. Do we really want "ES4" and "Stackless ES4" (for
example)?

Peter Michaux put it nicely when he said:

> If there are no requirements for proper tail calls then they cannot be
> depended upon and are useless.

Portability is a huge requirement for me, and if there's a valid reason
for leaving PTC out of an implementation history shows that someone
will.


Cheers,

--
Nathan de Vries

PS: What's the go with everyone including long lists of CCs? Isn't
everyone here on es4-discuss at mozilla.org?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 1878 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20080125/89109033/attachment-0002.bin 


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list