Maximally minimal stack trace standardization

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at google.com
Tue Sep 30 07:37:56 PDT 2014


On 30 September 2014 16:31, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
>> On 29 September 2014 19:25, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>>> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>>> That's why, IIRC (haven't checked lately), TCO is only specified for calls
>>>> from non-sloppy functions.
>>>
>>> PTC (Proper Tail Calls), not TCO. It's confusing to equate the two, from
>>> what I know (corrections welcome0.
>>
>> Hm, people most often refer to "mandatory tail call
>> optimisation/elimination" when talking about a spec level requirement.
>> I have never seen "PTC" used in a formal context, let alone the
>> acronym.
>
> Clinger's paper, which formalizes the concept, calls it "proper tail
> recursion" in the title, as does the R5RS Scheme standard. Since
> recursion isn't fundamental, though, proper tail calls seems more
> accurate. This terminology is used lots of places these days, such as
> the Lua docs and this (archive of a) post by Guy Steele:
> http://www.eighty-twenty.org/index.cgi/tech/oo-tail-calls-20111001.html

Interesting, good to know. Thanks for the clarification.

(Still wondering what improper tail calls would be.)

/Andreas


More information about the es-discuss mailing list