On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Jason Gloudon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 01:05:49PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote: > > > I know it's dangerous to compare hardware to a VM, but the required > > equivalent would be to not tear down ANY scoping, and additionally, the > > definition of a subroutine would have to preallocate ALL scopes before-hand. > > I think you're making more of it than is necessary. The scheme requirement is > that one can make an unbounded number of tail recursive calls in finite > storage. > > This can be done using the equivalent of Perl's magical goto. This might > destroy and re-create the same scope (though it's not clear how much real work > that entails) on each call, but the storage required will be fixed.
We dont even need that. Tail recursion's the equivalent of next-ing a looping block with some twiddling of the argument list. Shouldn't be tough. dan