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 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.
Right.
> 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.
Wrong.
Stackless will always be there, one or two weeks later but will
be there.
There is a guarantee: It will never be part of CPython.
Proof: Just follow the postings in python-dev over the last five
years, and how Guido handled these.
If the proposals seemed to have a tiny chance, it was finally
shut down by some "And however you argue, I don't want it" like
statement. "If you need it, use it, that's where Stackless is for".
In a sense, I like this Groucho Marx approach of
"whatever it is, I'm against it". It is just not coherent with
all the feature-creaping-ins of the past years, this is
not consistent.
Some way I can accept this. But the whole story is partially like
cheating.
First, I was dissed because of Guido disliking continuations. OK!
Next, I was dissed because of rewriting lots of the core is
not feasible. OK!
Btw., I have almost solved this by some automation which could
apply sensible patches to almost every extension module.
But who cares.
Afterwards, I was dissed because compatibility to Jython
was made into a problem. OK!
Nice that I could turn a not-so-beloved kid into a really loved one.
After all (as said many times, already), I don't care, and I continue
with Stackless. Also by supporting more supportive languages like
Prothon (although I still don't understand why prototypes are better
than classes).
Anyway, removing recursive-descend evaluation from Python would
mean to remove Guido from Python, which is certainly not an
option. At least I won't try this for his life-time, and it
is also by no means my wish. I prefer to stick within my role as
the dark side of Python. :-)
If I only could *understand* him, that would really help.
ciao -- chris
p.s.: since yesterday, Psyco belongs to the "well supported special
modules for Stackless". Psyco is the only module that I know of that
heavily depends on frame layout. You have to recompile it, but then
it works really fine. I hope not to impose resentments on Psyco
by that :)
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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