From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0F6BB94 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:42:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ash25e.internode.on.net (ash25e.internode.on.net [203.16.214.182]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j930g6eQ032259 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:42:08 +0200 Received: from rosella (ppp16-174.lns2.syd7.internode.on.net [59.167.16.174]) by ash25e.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j930fxln086871; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:11:59 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data From: skaller To: Martin Chabr Cc: Pal-Kristian Engstad , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20051001210520.64728.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20051001210520.64728.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:41:58 +1000 Message-Id: <1128300118.10449.136.camel@rosella> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43407E5E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 avoiding:01 recursive:01 stack:01 compilers:01 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 tail:01 data:02 functional:02 functional:02 cps:02 pal-kristian:03 optimization:03 overflow:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 23:05 +0200, Martin Chabr wrote: > Hello Pal-Kristian, > > I agree with you that functional code written in a > tail recursive style is hard to read. Sometimes you > have to do it that way if you want to avoid a stack > overflow. > > I hope that one day functional language compilers will > do that optimization for you - convert a > non-tail-recursive code into a tail-recursive one. Do > you know of some progress in that direction? Isn't that just CPS? -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net