[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: why no "continue" statement for loops?
- From: Peter Shook <pshook@...>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:55:14 -0400
Nick Trout wrote:
How very interesting. I didn't know that either. From
"1. A proper tail recursive call to G never returns to its
caller F, yet the computation can proceed as though it had.
2. From the point of view of control, a proper tail recursive
call is equivalent to a goto."
For those who enjoy history, here is a paper by John Reynolds:
My fovorite quote is that of van Wijngaarden.