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

Re: tail recursion proposal

I realize my note sent this morning may have been misunderstood.  I
was trying to respond only to the calls to add text about the design
trade-offs of properly tail recursive implementations.  Let me
reiterate, I do not believe authors of the R5RS should feel obligated
to include text that discusses the design trade-offs of requiring that
all of its implementations must be properly tail recursive.  I do
strongly believe the R5RS should state a rationale for its requirement
of proper tail recursion.  I concur with the general scope and goals
of the text on the proper tail recursion requirement sent out on
January 6th.