[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION (Version 1)
- To: eb@LUCID.COM
- Subject: Issue: TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:03 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8809010415.AA03523@kent-state>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 21:15:50 PDT
From: Eric Benson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This is not tail-recursion optimization...
You're right. I'm familiar with the distinctions you're making and am guilty
of sloppy wording.
In the meantime -- while I rewrite the proposal to refer to "early binding"
rather than "tail recursion" where appropriate -- could you please comment on
whether you are likely to support such an ammended proposal, or if not, why
not? (I'll also try to broaden the set of test cases to include a
non-tail-recursive example in which early binding just for clarity.)
Are your objections more than ones of mere terminology and classification?
Do you want to use something other than INLINE? Do you want to contest the
chosen defaults? Do you think this is a non-issue? These are the kinds of
questions I'd like to see answered. I'd like to not have discussion of this
proposal fall off just because of some (admittedly glaring) wording problems.