> Do you have plans to revist the tail call question within RacketScript?
Yes we do. The readme includes that statement just to be upfront with users about racketscript's philosophy and what to expect when trying racketscript. That being said, RacketScript currently converts self-tail-calls to loops, which is already on par with some industrially-used functional language js compilers, so we conjecture that racketscript's tail call handling is already sufficient for a wide variety of applications. Of course, we would also be happy to learn of any deficiencies. Even though Racketscript is still immature and unstable, we welcome feedback and contributions from the community to help shape Racketscript's development. > TCO > is essential to idiomatic Scheme, and (while Racket is not Scheme, and has > grown other noteworthy strengths, and people have less interest in learning > algorithm crafting than they used to) I think TCO still has a lot of merit, > and should not be discarded lightly. > > Not many people will mind if you discard first-class continuations, however. > :) > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
