Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Rev. Chip <rev.chip@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:08:54AM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Jan Dubois wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Aaron Crane wrote:
> > > Don't we have that alternative return builtin already with:
> > >
> > >     @_ = (...);
> > >     goto &foo;
> >
> > I just tested it, and "goto &__SUB__" doesn't work:
>
> But this does: "goto &{+__SUB__}".  I think "goto __SUB__" ought to.
>

  What do you know – it does:

sidhekin@pinklady[00:19:50]~$ /opt/perl-blead/bin/perl5.17.2
use 5.016;
use warnings;

sub countdown {
    my $count = shift;
    if ($count) {
        say $count;
        sleep 1;
        @_ = ($count-1);
        goto __SUB__
    }
    say "BOOM";
}

countdown(3);

__END__
3
2
1
BOOM
sidhekin@pinklady[00:19:56]~$


  Nope, wasn't expecting that.  But now I see it, I like it. :)


Eirik

• Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by demerphq
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Aaron Crane
• RE: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Jan Dubois
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Paul LeoNerd Evans
• RE: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Jan Dubois
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Rev. Chip
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Eirik Berg Hanssen
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Eirik Berg Hanssen
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by David Golden
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Rev. Chip
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by demerphq
• Re: Tail recursion optimisation considered possible by Aaron Crane