At 01:03 AM 11/15/2001 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>What is the current stance on implementing proper tail recursion in perl6?
In perl it's unlikely. (unless you consider redone blocks tail recursion,
which they sort of are) In Parrot we can do it. I'll think about it to make
sure it's easily doa
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Jason Gloudon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 01:05:49PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
>
> > I know it's dangerous to compare hardware to a VM, but the required
> > equivalent would be to not tear down ANY scoping, and additionally, the
> > definition of a subroutine wo
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 01:05:49PM -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> I know it's dangerous to compare hardware to a VM, but the required
> equivalent would be to not tear down ANY scoping, and additionally, the
> definition of a subroutine would have to preallocate ALL scopes before-hand.
I th
On Thursday 15 November 2001 07:53 am, Ken Fox wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > For instance, we can have a "ret-with-call" opcode. However, isn't it
> > exactly the same as a jump instruction ?
>
> No. The current scope must be destroyed, lexicals destroyed, localized
> globals restored, etc. It's
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Proper Tail Recursion is harder to debug, but consumes less memory and is
> faster to execute ...
It definitely consumes less memory, but performance is the same (until
the memory issue starts dominating...) I don't know what you mean by
debugging -- user code or parrot inter
