Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.003 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'cpython': 0.05; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.05; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; ':-)': 0.12; '*never*': 0.16; 'gregory': 0.16; 'keyword.': 0.16; 'mistake.': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'language': 0.19; '>>>': 0.20; 'explicit': 0.22; 'lawrence': 0.22; 'code,': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.26; 'subject:/': 0.30; 'another': 0.32; 'says': 0.32; 'language.': 0.32; 'point': 0.33; 'throughout': 0.34; 'knowledge': 0.35; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.37; 'why': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'mark': 0.40; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.62; 'our': 0.64; 'paper': 0.73; 'received:89': 0.80; 'pythonistas,': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Possibly Pythonic Tail Call Optimization (TCO/TRE) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:47:28 +0100 References: <55A3A853.4040006@rece.vub.ac.be> <55A3C366.6060602@rece.vub.ac.be> <87fv4r1fre.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <877fq3nuwo.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-89-240-167-72.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1436860474 news.xs4all.nl 2944 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:59726 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:93793 On 14/07/2015 07:29, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Ian Kelly : >> >>> Another point in favor of an explicit tail-call keyword. Then one >>> couldn't make that mistake. >> >> How about "return"? > > How about "goto"? :-) > Why not "goto"? It's use is scattered throughout the cpython code, and to my knowledge there's no paper that says *NEVER* use it. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence