[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION (Version 1)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issue: TAIL-RECURSION-OPTIMIZATION (Version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 20 Sep 88 18:21 PDT
- In-reply-to: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>'s message of Thu, 1 Sep 88 16:29:42 CDT
The X3J13 body seems willing (eager) to give implementors the leeway to make
small concessions in semantics in the name of performance.
This seems like a relatively small concession given the negative association
with the assembly-language hacker's anathema of "self-modifying code".
I think it is marginally OK to leave the issue name alone....
Isn't this strongly related to FUNCTION-COERCE-TIME? I'm in favor of lazy
function coerce time for FUNCALL and agressive function coerce time for
car-of-form calling. That is, implementations should assume early binding when
it appears as the car of form, and late binding when it appears 'FOO. If you
really want late binding, you can say (FUNCALL 'FOO x y), right?
I don't know if it makes sense to link the issues, but the two together make
more sense than either one alone.