PTC and "SHOULD" vs "MUST"
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Thu Jun 2 00:37:46 PDT 2011
It wasn't just a thinko, but I'm actually happier with MUST. Fixed.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> > Peter
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss