Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Possibly Pythonic Tail Call Optimization (TCO/TRE)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:57:27 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <877fq3nuwo.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net>
References: <CAD+URuj-4e62-9hvpiLsrBP1M6kXRyZhZ6XyL01gWWnDoShvNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmrnd2cdA75ROZUKsJfYMdYUXkxRbEN50UE_-r0Jg=c5nQ@mail.gmail.com> <55A3A853.4040006@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAPTjJmr92j+2DDPsZxynoHyZTTCpc-48cWCVrx_fT3dA0j_Osg@mail.gmail.com> <55A3C366.6060602@rece.vub.ac.be> <mailman.468.1436796350.3674.python-list@python.org> <87fv4r1fre.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <CAPTjJmqjuh2_s7-GzfqMNnpimS61W9m3KE5V9yd0TXm9VhTc7A@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.483.1436852831.3674.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b7cb1518d23ec19d482dcc9c31d30fdd"; logging-data="32760"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+B2RSS1JetsFVs9dzt6Pnc"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9LqghhqDowklAqR/heUoz8fRh+g= sha1:t4n2Uqir27z//6vLL8B7nY2f19k=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:93787

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (Also, side point: Python can't actually optimize the above function,
>> because it actually means "call quicksort, then discard its return
>> value and return None". A true tail call has to return the result of
>> the recursive call, and Python lacks a way to say "this function will
>> always return None". But that's trivial.)
>
> Another point in favor of an explicit tail-call keyword. Then one
> couldn't make that mistake.

How about "return"?


Marko