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 <holyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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` as well as within functions (named or > otherwise). > > user=> (loop [i 10 acc 0] (if (= i 0) acc (recur (- i 1) (+ i acc)))) > 55 > user=> (defn foo [i acc] (if (= i 0) acc (recur (- i 1) (+ i acc)))) > #'user/foo > user=> (foo 10 0) > 55 > > Much neater than having to introduce some function or other construct > to act as a recursion point, and in many cases clearer than an > iteration construct. In Scheme you need a 'thing' to call.
-- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
