[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Continuations and scheme level wrappers

From: Gary Houston
Subject: Re: Continuations and scheme level wrappers
Date: 30 Nov 2000 20:19:06 -0000

> From: Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:01:46 +0100
> I saw your recent change maing continuations applicable smobs.
> Question: Will the new continuations be properly tail-recursive?
> They need to be...
> They should, for example, handle a situation where a recursion
> repeatedly creates a continuation and calls it tail-recursively
> without leaving anything on the stack.

Hi Mikael,

Do you mean something like this?

(define cont #f)

(define (a)
  (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c)
                                    (set! cont c)))

(define (b)
  (if (< (random 10) 5)
      (cont #f)

Judging by process size, this seems to be tail recursive when using
the normal evaluator but not when using the debugging evaluator.

I have a version of Guile from shortly before my changes which shows
the same behaviour.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]