At about 72:54 of the clojure sequence talk, Rich explains that he doesn't want to provide "false guaranties" to people used to "true tail calls" even though he could detect such "tail position calls" and basically transforms them into what recur currently does.
I'm just curious about examples where such a "magic transformation" would result in violated assumptions. If the detection of the tail call position is not too involved, (after all, detecting that recur is in tail position seems simpler than detecting that an arbitrary function call is) I fail to see what the problem is. Anyone cares to elaborate? Many Thanks --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
