3 ms·

Thanks, that is what I thought, but didn't trust my memory. Yes, I did mean optimization - without it you can blow through your stack quickly (and the tracebac

Thanks, that is what I thought, but didn't trust my memory. Yes, I did mean optimization - without it you can blow through your stack quickly (and the traceback will be long and redundant :)

xapata 4y ago
In those cases, you may wish to use a dynamic programming technique. A bit of caching might be a greater optimization than tail call elimination. The `@functools.lru_cache` tool is very easy to experiment with.
xapata 4y ago
> will be long and redundant They made a highly redundant traceback display much more pleasant a couple years ago, writing "the same thing 1,998 more times ..." or something like that.
aidenn0 4y ago
Common lisp doesn't require tail call elimination either, fwiw
- bjoli 4y ago
  But every implementation except clisp, ECL and clisp do it reliably.
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    I think you may have meant to substitute ABCL for one of those clisps?
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    sbcl doesn't always do it, depending on optimization settings, and clisp does do it when compiling; by "reliably" perhaps you meant "by default"?