re: tail recursion

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK>]

> Let me repeat my reason: I feel it is vitally important to get Scheme into
> the mainstream, and it is better to place as few limitations on that
> process as possible, at least for now. Tail call removal is possibly a
> large barrier to certain compiler groups who would otherwise support
> Scheme completely.  At least at present.

How serious is this problem?  Right now, different languages don't
seem to _have_ to share back ends.  On machines where languages would
normally work this way, what happens to those that don't fit?  Can
they not be implemented at all?

I also have a question about how standards work.  If someone doesn't
conform completely, they can list their deficiencies.  But where/when
do they have to note them?  Can they never say they're Scheme without
making some qualifications, or can they leave that kind of thing for
the documentation, or what?

In other words, if we the standard says Scheme has to be tail-recursive,
how much does this actually accomplish?

-- Jeff