Re: why no "continue" statement for loops?

[Peter Shook <pshook@...>]

Nick Trout wrote:
> How very interesting. I didn't know that either. From
> (http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/classes/dragn/labs/control/control410.html)
> :-
>
> 	"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:

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/reynolds93discoveries.html

My fovorite quote is that of van Wijngaarden.