[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: rrrs-authors@martigny.ai.mit.edu*Subject*: Tail recursion, etc.*From*: Guillermo J. Rozas <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>*Date*: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:38:02 -0400*Reply-To*: gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu

I don't like the term "tail expression". Of course, I don't like "tail recursion" or "tail call" either. MIT Scheme has used the terms "reduction" (and "subproblem" for subexpressions that are not reductions). The one advantage this term has is that it is much nicer to say "x reduces to y" than "x tail calls y". I don't even know how I would rephrase "tail expression" to become active. One thing that the proposed formalizations do not seem to embody is that the notions of "tail call", "tail expression", "reduction", etc. are not absolute, but relative to some starting point.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Tail recursion, etc.***From:*ramsdell@linus.mitre.org (John D. Ramsdell)

- Prev by Date:
**Re: requiring proper tail recursion** - Next by Date:
**Re: Tail recursion, etc.** - Prev by thread:
**mathematical models** - Next by thread:
**Re: Tail recursion, etc.** - Index(es):