random...@fastmail.us writes: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 13:15, Alain Ketterlin wrote: >> That's fine. My point was: you can't at the same time have full >> dynamicity *and* procedural optimizations (like tail call opt). >> Everybody should be clear about the trade-off. > > Let's be clear about what optimizations we are talking about. Tail call > optimization, itself, doesn't care _what_ is being called. It can just > as easily mean "erase its own stack frame and replace it with that of > another function" as "reassign the arguments and jump to the top of this > function". Some people have introduced the idea of _further_ > optimizations, transforming "near" tail recursion (i.e. return self()+1) > into tail recursion, and _that_ depends on knowing the identity of the > function (though arguably that could be accounted for at the cost of > including dead code for the path that assumes it may have been changed), > but tail call optimization itself does not.
You're right, thanks for the clarification. -- Alain. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
