On Jul 15, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Christopher T King wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Bob Ippolito wrote: > >> On Jul 15, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Christopher T King wrote: >> >> But in this case what is tail-call optimization going to do for you? >> You still require a stack at least the size of the height of your tree >> because of traverse(t.left) since that can not be tail-call optimized >> away, with the proposed algorithm. > > In Andrew's example, he noted that it would only help for list-like > structures (i.e. those with mostly right nodes). I think it's a misleading example nonetheless.. >> I think Guido is in the right here, if you want to work around the >> recursion limit, use Stackless.. It should already be able to go just >> about as deep as you want. > > You're right -- even if Stackless doesn't do tail call optimization, > implementation should be trivial. But there's no guarantee when or > even > if Stackless will be merged with CPython, and until that happens, > Stackless isn't an option for many (most?) people. Why not? Surely anyone who knows they want to do this kind of programming is capable of ./configure && make && sudo make install :) Nearly all extension modules used with CPython should even be *binary* compatible with Stackless. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3589 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040715/a2cc4a50/smime.bin
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