[REBOL] Tail recursion in REBOL 2.0 Re:(2)

[ingo]

When I asked Rebol Tech about tail-recursion some time ago, 
that was what they told me. And that they wanted it back, too,
but only for functions that need it. So maybe we'll at some time 
see a function argument [recursive], or the like,


regards,

Ingo


Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... 
 REBOL 1.0 was tail recursive, and it was SLOW. This is because, as
 Joe Marshall expalined to me, handling tail recursion is not an
 easy thing to do. I'd like to see tail recursion back in REBOL,
 but I'm not sure if I'd want the complexity of the interpreter to
 increase. I'd prefer a better solution, such as testing for tail
 recursion only on function that require it:
 
 f: tail-recursive-func [...] [...]
 
 Regards,
 Gabriele.
 -- 
 o) .-^-. (--o
 | Gabriele Santilli / /_/_\_\ \ Amiga Group Italia --- L'Aquila |
 | GIESSE on IRC \ \-\_/-/ /  http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/ |
 o) `-v-' (--o
 
 
Hi Rebols,




regards,

Ingo

--  _ ._
ingo@)|_ /|  _| _  We ARE all ONE   www._|_o _   _ ._ _  
www./_|_) |o(_|(/_  We ARE all FREE ingo@| |(_|o(_)| (_| 
http://www.2b1.de/Rebol/ ._|  ._|

[REBOL] Tail recursion in REBOL 2.0 Re:(2)

[icimjs]

Hi Gabriele,

REBOL 1.0 was tail recursive, and it was SLOW. This is because, as
Joe Marshall expalined to me, handling tail recursion is not an
easy thing to do. I'd like to see tail recursion back in REBOL,
but I'm not sure if I'd want the complexity of the interpreter to
increase. I'd prefer a better solution, such as testing for tail
recursion only on function that require it:

Not to forget that REBOL 1.0 had problems with correctly interpreting some
constructs, when they were recalled recursively. Recall that we had to use
copy on a foreach loop and even then there were problems occassionally.

Elan