[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Tail Recursion.
- From: James Rice <Rice@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
- Date: Fri 18 Jul 86 13:25:11-PDT
Given that it seems most unlikely that CL implementations will be
required to support tail recursion optimisation, it also seems likely
that we will be stuck with having to decorate function definitions,
which we want to be compiled tail recursively if possible.
Can I make a plea that this decoration, presumably some form of
declaration, should a) be part of the standard, requiring and b) NOT
be linked to such things as the Saftey switch, as it is in at least
one implementation. Tail recursion optimisation is something quite
orthogonal to generated code Safety.
(Declare (Optimize (Tail-Recursion)))
would be ok. I feel strongly that using such things as InLine
NotInLine to control such things, as was suggested a while back would
be most unclear.