[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: requiring proper tail recursion
I think Will's version of the tail-recursion requirement is very
good. I agree with every point he made.
William D Clinger <will@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> I would prefer to keep the discussion of tail-recursion in
> Section 1.1 brief, because that section is after all a brief
> overview of many different things, and just add "See section
> X.Y." as a pointer to a fuller discussion.
Good idea.
> 1. For a COND clause of the form (E0 => E1), the implied call
> is in a tail context iff the entire COND expression is.
An oversight on my part. Good fix.
> 3. EVAL is not required to evaluate its argument within a
> tail context; see below.
I just copied Richard's text, I'll let him debate this.
> 2. Top-level expressions are not counted as tail contexts.
On this point, I think I made a too literal a translation of the
definition of tail combinations using contexts into Scheme. Opps...
Good show,
John