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

Re: (none)

To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: (none)
From: Joe Keane <voder!nsc!amdahl!pacbell!osc!jgk@bloom-beacon.mit.edu>
Date: Wed ,7 Feb 90 17:36:48 EDT
Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA
References: <9002051741.AA03862@heike.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
Sender: scheme-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu

In article <9002051741.AA03862@heike.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
muenx@heike.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Holger Muenx) writes:
>At first, it is possible to implement scheme that tail recursions (means
>recursions of iterative nature, needing only a constant amount of memory)
>really work without allocating new memory during every recursive application.
>In Abelson + Sussman it is said it is possible and I think in MIT-Scheme it
>is done.

Wait, isn't this _required_ of an implementation?

References:
- [no subject]
  - From: Holger Muenx <muenx@heike.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>

Prev by Date: Re: X bindings in Scheme?
Next by Date: Re: X bindings in Scheme?
Previous by thread: optimising factorial
Next by thread: CGOL revisited: A Pratt parser for SIOD (scheme in one defun)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread