> In my experience lazy-seqs are a reasonable replacement for the lack of TCO, > and from what I've heard that is one of the reasons they exist. > (defn a [x] > (lazy-seq > (cons x (b (inc x))))) > (defn b [x] > (lazy-seq > (cons x (a (inc x))))) > David > I am not sure I get you. COuld you elaborate a bit more this example, please? Which tail-call functions are you trying to replace by a and b?
Nicolas. -- 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
