Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:26 PM +0100 11/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Patch is probably ready tomorrow.
> Cool. I think I'd like to skip having to specify the -Oc flag,
> though, and add explicit syntax to PIR.
Do we really need it? Are there wicked cases, where we could misdetect a
tail call?
As far as I know is any sequence looking like:
...
(a,b) = foo(...)
.return (a,b)
.end
a tail call. That is the call to a function immediately followed by a
return, which is the last operation of that function, has the same
return value(s) as the actual return.
At least that's what the code with -Oc is checking now.
> ... Double-colons before
> the opening parenthesis or something. Foo::().
That's looking too much like some kind of perlish class thingy.
Why not just:
.return-> foo(args) # "return trough" token
leo
