From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF125BBB7 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:06:47 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusCAPtPO0jAXQIniGdsb2JhbACCM5AHAQEBDyCaGA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,547,1204498800"; d="scan'208";a="12757083" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 May 2008 09:06:47 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m4R76l7i005998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:06:47 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUEAPtPO0jUnw6Eb2dsb2JhbACCM5AHAQwFAgQHEwOaFQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,547,1204498800"; d="scan'208";a="11155200" Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.132]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 May 2008 09:06:47 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay05.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1K0tGg-0005Wm-6F; Tue, 27 May 2008 08:06:46 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: "Till Varoquaux" , "caml-list" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] OCaml-Java project: 1.0 release Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:01:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <764D4B4A-FA1E-4672-BA9D-4195193E1C48@x9c.fr> <200805270706.20939.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <9d3ec8300805262337o6cb390f0ma986212e065132d6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8300805262337o6cb390f0ma986212e065132d6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805270801.39081.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 6af7b7ac3d302fc99ed36eee332ade73 X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 483BB307.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; recursion:01 1.0:98 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 tail:01 tail:01 implemented:02 implemented:02 implement:06 tue:06 release:09 jvm:11 ltd:87 On Tuesday 27 May 2008 07:37:40 Till Varoquaux wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > 4. Are tail calls fully implemented and, if not, when exactly do they > > work? > > One cannot fully implement tail calls on the JVM: there's no such > thing as a goto or a tail call instruction. > Tail recursion can usually be done for cheap. The general requires > some expensive machinery (usually trampolines) What characteristics of tail calls cannot be implemented using trampolines? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e