No problem, Graydon, thanks for the clarification! You might need to rewrite your code as it’s not tail recursive (see [1] for some examples; you could also try your luck with fold-left). If you want to go the easy path, you can also increase the Java stack size when starting BaseX (by adding -Xss... to the startup script). Obviously, that’ll only postpone the problem ;·).
Cheers, Christian [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:05 PM Graydon <graydon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Christian -- > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:53:24PM +0200, Christian Grün scripsit: > > To understand you correctly: You indicated that you only observed the > > initial error if the code was moved into a module. > > That is factual, but it's an artifact of poor testing on my part. I had > tested the function against some samples before inserting it in the > module and did not take sufficient care to find an actually large > pattern string. > > As a result, the function worked fine with the test cases, and when it > was put it in a module and called as part of processing the whole > content set it failed. This is not plausibly a result of putting it in a > module rather than a result of poorly chosen test cases. > > With an actually large pattern string, the function fails when run by > itself, outside of a module. > > > Did I get this right? If not, what did you mean by »Stick the > > functions in a module namespace«? > > You have what I said correct, but I made a mistake when I said it. > > I didn't see the failure until the function had been put in a module and > run against the full content set, so I was wondering if that was a > contributing factor. If I'd done a better job of picking test cases, I > would have seen the failure with the stand-alone function, and do now > see the failure with the stand-alone function in example2.zip. > > Hope that helps! > Graydon > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:20 PM Graydon <graydon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Christian -- > > > > > > Apologies; I was hoping there was something in the structure of the > > > function that was obviously daft by inspection. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:15:56AM +0200, Christian Grün scripsit: > > > > Sorry, I’m lazy. Could you share some minimized code with us that > > > > triggers the error? > > > > > > For certain narrowly defined values of lazy! > > > > > > I've attached a zip. > > > > > > The variable "awkward" has been assigned the string literal of the first > > > pattern in the sorted list of patterns which triggers the error. Due to > > > a large table in the markup, this pattern is about 75 kb long. > > > > > > The rest of the query is a function call using this variable as the > > > parameter. It fails with a "Stack Overflow: Try tail recursion?" > > > error. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Graydon
