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
