Terry Reedy wrote: > You cannot tell whether a function object will act > recursive or not just by looking at its code body. Trivial examples: I was thinking last night that maybe it would be useful to be able to define a function explicitly as a recursive object where it's frame is reused on successive calls, but then I realized that it's nearly identical to a loop in that context, so why not just write it as a loop to start with. Cheers, Ron
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