I kind of agree that loop acts as a point for recursion, however if
the auo-TCO thing is possible, writing naturally recursing code would
become possible.
I think that recur could still exist independent like what other said.
On Jan 18, 2:55 am, Richard Newman wrote:
> > Other people prefer having
2010/1/18 Alex Ott
> But this will not allow to jump to outer loop from inside of inner loop...
>
>
If you require mutual recursion, letfn might be your answer
See example here:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/a7aad1d5b94db748
--
You received this message because you
I'm confused. Shouldn't the inner loop have the proper conditionals
to break out of itself properly instead?
On Jan 18, 8:48 am, Alex Ott wrote:
> Re
>
> Konrad Hinsen at "Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:23:58 +0100" wrote:
> KH> On 18.01.2010, at 12:03, Alex Ott wrote:
>
> >> I have a question to Rich -
Re
Konrad Hinsen at "Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:23:58 +0100" wrote:
KH> On 18.01.2010, at 12:03, Alex Ott wrote:
>> I have a question to Rich - are there plans to introduce "named"
>> loop/recur? In Scheme it very handy to create named let, and create nested
>> loops. Currently in Clojure, I need
On 18 Jan 2010, at 11:23, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
On 18.01.2010, at 12:03, Alex Ott wrote:
I have a question to Rich - are there plans to introduce "named"
loop/recur? In Scheme it very handy to create named let, and
create nested
loops. Currently in Clojure, I need to split nested loop
On 18.01.2010, at 12:03, Alex Ott wrote:
I have a question to Rich - are there plans to introduce "named"
loop/recur? In Scheme it very handy to create named let, and create
nested
loops. Currently in Clojure, I need to split nested loop into
separate
function, that not so often good
Ne
Hello all
I have a question to Rich - are there plans to introduce "named"
loop/recur? In Scheme it very handy to create named let, and create nested
loops. Currently in Clojure, I need to split nested loop into separate
function, that not so often good
--
With best wishes, Alex Ott, MBA
http
Even if Java and thus Clojure eventually adds TCO, I hope recur sticks
around, because I have come to prefer loop-recur syntax for the kinds
of things I do with named let in Scheme.
TCO would certainly be useful, though.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
Other people prefer having a form to explicitly request recursion.
That way, you are able to say explicitly in your code: I expect this
to be TCO-able, and have the compiler tell you if you are mistaken.
Another advantage of the explicit form is that it can be used
anonymously with `loop` a
I was wondering about that myself but was too embarrassed to ask :)
On Jan 17, 8:39 am, itsnotvalid wrote:
> Just started learning Clojure a day ago with Stuart's book I found
> that Clojure doesn't do tail recursion optimization, not at least for
> the most simplest form. Instead the call must b
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder :), but anyway, I got curious and
dug up some info on scala's recursion:
http://blog.richdougherty.com/2009/04/tail-calls-tailrec-and-trampolines.html
On Jan 17, 7:39 am, itsnotvalid wrote:
> Just started learning Clojure a day ago with Stuart's book I found
>
Just started learning Clojure a day ago with Stuart's book I found
that Clojure doesn't do tail recursion optimization, not at least for
the most simplest form. Instead the call must be made to recur instead
of the function itself.
However in the more-or-less-the-same-camp Scala does such optimiza
12 matches
Mail list logo
