[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: requiring proper tail recursion
From: Kent Pitman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 19:35:25 EDT
Further, if "well-loved" is going to be used in here [again begging
definitional questions that led us to open this set of paragraphs for
rewording :-], I'm almost tempted to ask the wording be extended to say
"... a widely used and
well-loved programming idiom in the Scheme language that
defeats the widely used and well-loved program idiom of stack debugging
common to other languages."
I like it. I think this does capture much of the essence of the tradeoff.
Part of what bugs me about other languages is the extent to which reliance
on such debugging tools is relied on implicitly but *not* captured as part
of the language specification.
Maybe we can bring this out explicitly in Scheme, in the form of a procedure
save-me-some-debugging-information, calls to which can be wrapped around
calls that would otherwise be tail calls?
Or is this better left to a metaprogramming/debugging facility?