On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Justin Zamora wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>>
>> OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not
>> the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>
> OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not
> the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly about
> non-tail calls and how, in Racket, you cannot exhaust the stack
> without
On the other hand, if I recall correctly SML has the same behavior as racket. I
think the implementation uses a chain of "stacklets" that are heap allocated.
On Apr 27, 2017, 8:07 PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri , wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
>> > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
>> >
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
> > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
> > with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
>
> That
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
> i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
> with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
That would be a rather contentious claim, as it rules out OCaml, for example.
i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
On Apr 27, 2017 4:01 PM, "brendan" wrote:
> Dr. Felleisen,
>
> Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language
Dr. Felleisen,
Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language with unbounded
recursion depth as far as you know? And with respect to implementation, can you
explain the role of the one extra bit that you mention?
A number of functional languages targeting platforms like the
+1 to Robby's idea :P
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> "..., Hooray!" ? :)
>
> Robby
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:46 PM Jordan Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen
"..., Hooray!" ? :)
Robby
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:46 PM Jordan Johnson wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> > While I am at it, let me advocate PITCH as the slogan for Proper
> Implementation of Tail Calls. (Where
On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> While I am at it, let me advocate PITCH as the slogan for Proper
> Implementation of Tail Calls. (Where does the H come from? I added it to make
> a complete word.)
Proper Implementation of Tail Call Handling? :)
Brendan,
you’re correct in attributing the idea that the proper implementation of tail
calls is far less important to the Scheme and Racket community. Dybvig
expressed this idea first in a talk titled a Bag of Hacks in the early 90s.
Matthew then at some point said that the true goal is to
Good points: It wasn't strictly true to say that you can make non-tail calls
"without fear." Rather, your memory for continuation frames is shared with, and
just as large as, any other kind of data.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users"
13 matches
Mail list logo