On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Michael Hudson wrote: > I guess I could have said this in c.l.py, but: what's the point? I > don't think I've ever had a situation where hitting the recursion > limit wasn't a bug, and given a) the ease with which a non-contrivedly > tail recursive algorithm can usually be rewritten iteratively and b) > the (lack of) speed of function calls in today's Python I can't see > any huge real advantage to this patch. To tell the truth, I don't really have any immediate use for this functionality, either, but since it turned out to be so easy to implement, I ask, "why not?" ;) Presuming it doesn't break any existing functionality, of course.* I prefer to think of it in the same light as the opcode prediction macros, i.e. as a performance enhancement, rather than as an attempt to introduce a new paradigm to the language (which it isn't). * I know it breaks stack traces, but the final implementation will only be used when the -O flag is specified, or some other such indicator is set.
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