From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2011-04-20T02:05:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Tail Call Optimization (Tail Recursion)

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:48:51PM +0900, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>=20
> He makes a sensible argument, it's just not the particular set of
> tradeoffs that I'd choose. But that's why I don't use Python, and he
> does. :)
>=20
> Essentially, his argument boils down to this: with TCO, you can write
> programs that _need_ TCO to function. And then you have Python code
> that works on some interpreters and not others. And that's bad.

That occurred to me as a possible reason for making the statement Guido
made, and it's a reasonable statement to make for that reason when
speaking of a current version of the language, really.  That argument
doesn't apply to reasons to exclude tail call optimization from future
versions, though.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2tvbEACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWyCQCff/Tsz0rCQLT6mTR+B12BglzB
cXsAoLsMsS8paBLHU/PttQoVRFxrdzkG
=h7HU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--