Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55a7feed$0$1674$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <CAD+URuj-4e62-9hvpiLsrBP1M6kXRyZhZ6XyL01gWWnDoShvNg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.499.1436874241.3674.python-list@python.org> <87d1zunctp.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <mailman.503.1436878550.3674.python-list@python.org> <87k2u2eu67.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <CAPTjJmqtTRHpNZHByn1pKNSfbsG6X--s2d_G0FopKxDugqpjdA@mail.gmail.com> <55A51662.4090007@rece.vub.ac.be> <mo4a7g$mkg$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.531.1436951405.3674.python-list@python.org> <d0o60cF8ubiU1@mid.individual.net> <55A75DE0.1070101@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAPTjJmoWqhZ_P890qug3Zf=VjJOBmO5kOSaX08PDF3FdNyLFNA@mail.gmail.com> <55A7B80B.6090905@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAPTjJmp3mupnenUYYNmvJpNr27zx_CdHQ9m6wkEFi-Lz+Evw9A@mail.gmail.com> <55A7C094.7060604@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAPTjJmozknJAqPvE1W1JZ66u72hNc_R5j5=wo+2JJK30Z5oc6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAB1GNpQw_gu4r3OmnQUtw8AhTWyPY4hpC42145UTPD2qMovYEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmrsrcHd0FUHA=D0uqrqxO04_1W=jMaOVzDFWvZ7MyOWfw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.595.1437068068.3674.python-list@python.org> <55a7feed$0$1674$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:14:15 +0300
Subject: Re: Possibly Pythonic Tail Call Optimization (TCO/TRE)
From: Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com>
To: "Steven D'Aprano" <steve@pearwood.info>
Cc: Python <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.604.1437074064.3674.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 39
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:93953

On 16 July 2015 at 21:58, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 03:34 am, Joonas Liik wrote:
>
>> Now i admit that it is possible to have infinite recursion but it is
>> also possiblew to have infinite loops. and we don't kill your code
>> after 1000 iterations of a while loop so why should we treat recursion
>> any differently?
>
> Because a while loop which repeats to many times is annoying but harmless,
> but a function that recurses too many times will blow up the stack and
> cause a seg fault, possibly executing arbitrary memory as code. You want
> malware and viruses to take over your system? That's how you get malware
> and viruses to take over your system.

That's just a buggy implementation, there are ways to extend the stack
that nears its capacity, safely.

>
>> Having a user defined maximum stack limit might be a good idea, eg if
>> my stack takes up 100MB its prolly broke, but it should be my duty as
>> a programmer to specify such a limit, not have it inflicted upon me
>> (worse, in a manner that cannot be changed!).
>
> You mean sys.getrecursionlimit() and sys.setrecursionlimit()?
>
... and that buggy implementation means that when you
sys.setrecursionlimit() you will overflow the stack and crash because
the recursion limit is an aritificial safeguard and the underlying c
buffer is not adjusted accordingly or at least so it would seem.

https://docs.python.org/2/library/sys.html#sys.setrecursionlimit
so as per the docs the programmer has no real control over how much
stack his program can have. all you can say is "let me ignore the
safeguard a little longer, i hope i wont crash the program" that is
not the same as "can i please have a stack depth of 20000..

You are giving the programmer a choice between "run out of stack and
crash" and "mutilate interpreter internals and crash or zero out the
hard drive" this is not a real choice..