> I'm also pretty sure that the compiler is extremely limited in what it can do here. And that is dangerous, as running in constant space is often a matter of

> I'm also pretty sure that the compiler is extremely limited in what it can do here. And that is dangerous, as running in constant space is often a matter of correctness, not one of optimization. I would rather have the compiler err on me if it sees non-tail recursive calls, rather than try to be smart sometimes. I've sometimes wondered why OCaml has "let" and "let rec", but not "let tail rec". It seems that something like this would be good for documentation and avoinding errors.