"Brett Cannon" <bac at OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message news:410095A1.2040002 at ocf.berkeley.edu... ---------------------------------- You are not getting tail recursion ---------------------------------- This strikes me as both misleading and potentially inflamatory. People remain free to use any form of recursion, including tail recursion. As I understand it, what Guido rejected was the automagic special case single-framing of tail recursive calls (for time and space saving). So what people are not getting is automatic tail recursion optimization (or elimination, though I consider that term less accurate). It seems to me that this decision is consistent with the general policy of not doing code-rewriting optimatization. We also are 'not getting', for instance, automatic common-expression elimination or automatic strength reduction or automatic movement of constant expressions outside of loops. So I suggest something like --------------------------- Automatic tail recursion optimization --------------------------- In keeping with the general policy of not doing code-rewrite optimation in the compiler, Guido rejected this proposal. For more, read... Terry J. Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4