PTC and "SHOULD" vs "MUST"

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Wed Jun 1 15:42:08 PDT 2011


Thanks for catching this, it goes back to http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:proper_tail_calls&rev=1273414092 (first rev). Cc'ing Mark. I bet it is just a thinko for MUST and we can fix it quickly.

/be

On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:

> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proper_tail_calls
> 
> I notice that in the proper tail calls wiki page that a compliant
> interpreter "SHOULD implement a call in proper tail position as a
> PTC." In order for a programmer to use proper tail calls for
> arbitrarily deep recursion, the programmer needs a guarantee that the
> interpreter will use proper tail calls. This would mean the "SHOULD"
> needs to be a "MUST". Otherwise what does the proper tail calls
> proposal gain the programmer?
> 
> For example, R5RS has much stronger language compared with "SHOULD"
> about Scheme using proper tail calls.
> 
> "Implementations of Scheme are required to be properly tail recursive."
> 
> With that language the programmer using Scheme can then depend on that feature.
> 
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



More information about the es-discuss mailing list