On the other hand, if I recall correctly SML has the same behavior as racket. I think the implementation uses a chain of "stacklets" that are heap allocated.
On Apr 27, 2017, 8:07 PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri <zeppi...@gmail.com>, wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection > > > > with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient. > > > > > > That would be a rather contentious claim, as it rules out OCaml, for > > > example. > > > > I really thought OCaml did tail-recursion properly. Its tutorial > > literature goes th some trouble to explain that it's OK to recurse > > tailfully. What is the truth here? > > > > OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not > the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly about > non-tail calls and how, in Racket, you cannot exhaust the stack > without exhausting all of the memory available to the program. > (Whereas in OCaml you can, because it uses a fixed-size stack.) > > -- > 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.
