Subject: Re: Was not making tail recursion elmination a mistake?
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:17:11 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <_OednU6K6Lo6l1DdRVn-gw@speakeasy.net>
Coby Beck <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
+---------------
| "Rob Warnock" <rpw3@rpw3.org> wrote in message
| > You basically need a full code-walker to
| > decide whether a given form is is is not a tail call
| 
| Well this really depends apon what the meanings of the words "is" are!
+---------------

(*sigh*) My bad. It's *way* too easy to typo when editing across
high-latency links.[1]  What I meant, of course, was:

    You basically need a full code-walker to
    decide whether a given form is or is not a tail call
				   **


-Rob

[1] AT&T Wireless's GSM/GPRS/EDGE cellular data service, which,
    while it has pretty good bandwidth [3-7 times dialup modem],
    has *terrible* round-trip latency:

	PING google.com (216.239.37.99): 56 data bytes
	64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=1145.788 ms
	64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=860.237 ms
	64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=570.285 ms
	64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=540.267 ms
	64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=670.334 ms
	...

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607