Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:54 AM -0800 11/11/04, Jeff Clites wrote: >>On Nov 11, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>I only skimmed the earlier parts of this, but continuations >>>shouldn't affect tail calls at all. >> >>You should read the thread then. > Joy. That means continuations are broken still. No. It was a wrong conclusion I had earlier in this thread. I thought that the presence of any captured frame could have an influence on tailcalls. I argue the converse now. leo
