> From: Guido van Rossum > > But I have a problem with tail recursion. It's generally requested by > new converts from the Scheme/Lisp or functional programming world, and > it usually means they haven't figured out yet how to write code > without using recursion for everything yet. IOW I'm doubtful on how > much of a difference it would make for real Python programs (which, > simplifying a bit, tend to use loops instead of recursion). And also > note that even if an exception is not caught, you'd like to see all > stack frames listed when the traceback is printed or when the debugger > is invoked. However, that doesn't preclude it from being a thesis subject - in some ways it's actually a bonus as it encourages exploration as it's a direction that is *not* going to be explored by the language designer. It's possible that we could see some truly unexpected benefits come out of this - or there could be no benefits to Python whatsoever. However, from a purely academic point of view, I think it would be a quite reasonable thesis. It allows applying a well-explorered field of research to a new arena. Besides ... sometimes a recursive solution is truly beautiful. Although I think in many (most?) cases a loop on a generator is probably the most appropriate and elegant approach. Tim Delaney
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