Terry Reedy a écrit : > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Terry Reedy wrote: > | > > In Python, you have a choice of recursion (normal or tail) > > [snip Stroud questions] > > | I'm afraid Terry is wrong here, at least if he meant that CPython had > | tail recursion *optimization*. > > NO!!! > I did not mean that or imply that in any way.
I understand you didn't mean it, but since the whole point of tail-recursion is allowing optimisation (else tail-recursion is nothing else than a subset of recursion), you somehow implied it, even while that was not your intention. > | (and just for those who don't know yet, it's not a shortcoming, it's a > | design choice.) > > And I already noted in a followup that I am working on a Python Papers > paper explaining that choice, including Guido's claim that 'for statements > are better'. > > So frankly I am a little annoyed that you dragged my name into your answer > to Stroud when you should have succintly said 'No, Never', or better, > nothing at all, as someone else already did say that. Read more of the > tread before jumping in and acribing ignorance to people. > You're right on the fact that I should have read more of the thread before posting this (which I usually do), and I do apologize for this. But please note the second half of the sentence - which puts a strong precondition on the validity of the first part. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
