Just realized there are many types of recursive functions for which trampoline can't be used in this way. It's an interesting problem though. I'm going to think some more about it.
On Jul 22, 11:11 pm, George Jahad <cloj...@blackbirdsystems.net> wrote: > sorry, wrong gist. here's one that tests for a function and only > calls trampoline on it. all three of your test cases work for it. > > http://gist.github.com/487019 > > g > > On Jul 22, 10:50 pm, Michał Marczyk <michal.marc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 23 July 2010 06:50, George Jahad <cloj...@blackbirdsystems.net> wrote: > > > > i like it a lot! what do you think of adding trampoline to it like > > > so: > > > >http://gist.github.com/487019 > > > Thanks! > > > Trampoline in letrec automatically breaks all cases where the value > > being bound to the local is not a function, so it would interfere with > > what I'm trying to do. Having said that, it seems to me that it's a > > very cool idea for a custom letfn variant permitting mutual recursion > > of unbounded depth. I'll investigate this further. > > > All the best, > > Michał -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
