3 ms·
I'm pretty sure it does. I would even think that it tries to optimize such, as a recent check-in comment claims improvements of TCO.
by guenthert 6mo ago
I'm pretty sure it does. I would even think that it tries to optimize such, as a recent check-in comment claims improvements of TCO.
- 2ndorderthought 6mo agoA lisp without tail recursion would be a sad thing.
- shawn_w 6mo agoCommon Lisp does not require implementations preform tail call optimization in general, or even in just the limited case of tail recursion.
- aidenn0 6mo agoIt's not unusual for lisp interpreters to lack TCO. Also the (relative) popularity of dynamic binding in Common Lisp reduced the opportunities for TCO. There's not really a consensus in the parts of the CL community that I'm familiar with on whether or not code relying on TCO is idiomatic or not.