• Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r4wp

[Rebol School] REBOL School

MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1060x3]
yes, there's a shortcoming if you're recursing from within a conditional 
-- thanks for spotting that; will rework
fix: http://0branch.com/highlight/snippets/rfunc3.r
though there's still the while loop wrapping the body
Ladislav
3-Oct-2012
[1063]
The WHILE loop is necessary for what you are doing, do not worry 
about it.
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1064x2]
damned silly mistakes -- was focused on getting the bindings etc. 
right, overlooked this prob
thanks for the help guys
Gregg
3-Oct-2012
[1066]
The usage comment in the third version is very nice. 


On doc strings, try to keep them short, leaving detailed notes to 
the usage or other comments. e.g.

rfunc: func [

    {Defines a tail-call optimized user function, using RECUR for self-calls.}
    spec [block!] "Function spec (see: func)"
    body [block!] "Function body (modified) (see: func)"
    /local wrapped
] [
    ...
] 

Short doc strings are nicer with HELP.
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1067]
thanks for the tip
Gregg
3-Oct-2012
[1068]
Also, I try to use special names for augmentations and such. In this 
case, 'with would conflict with my WITH func.
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1069x3]
hmm, yeah -- was wondering about that
that was originally _args_ but i switched it out so that you could 
get a more readable recur call (i.e., cheekily make use of 'with' 
so that it read better)
(for the BIND)
Gregg
3-Oct-2012
[1072x3]
Easy enough to add sigils to make it special. I don't general go 
as far as a gensym approach for things like this.
Yes. Too early for my brain here, but 'is known-word honored in the 
bind? e.g. "set with reduce (args)"
That is, 'with is special no matter what known-word you use, correct?
Ladislav
3-Oct-2012
[1075]
Marc, your "private variables" like 'with, _recur_ can be made more 
private not needing to use the PROtECT function, in fact.
Gregg
3-Oct-2012
[1076]
Ah, no, I think I get it now.
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1077]
I don't think you need 'with  at all, you can throw back the new 
parameters as an argument of the throw function, like:
>> throw/name reduce args 'recurse
Ladislav
3-Oct-2012
[1078x2]
also, there is a problem with the result I think
(I mean the function result)
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1080x2]
steeve: ooh, good point
ladislav: ah yes, there is
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1082]
Here is a version with no locals, no temporary context, no shit and 
not tested ;-)

rfunc: func [spec body][
	func spec compose/deep [
		forever [
		   set [(spec)] catch/name [
			  return (func spec body) (spec)
		   ] 'recur
		]
	]
]
recur: func [args][throw/name reduce args 'recur]
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1083x2]
wow
works well - full thing here: http://0branch.com/highlight/snippets/rfunc4.r
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1085x3]
to return a value and stop the function you need to use 'return instead 
of 'break
I think
recur (Must be in tail position)
 -> not needed anymore
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1088]
well, it has to be a tail call
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1089]
it's a tail call but it can be anywhere in the function body
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1090x2]
so you couldn't do   x + recur [ y ]
sounds like we mean different things by 'tail position'
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1092x3]
it seems
Yep, it seems
Yep, it seems
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1095]
i mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1096x2]
(lag)
It's tail call recursion yes, but tail position usualy means "physically 
placed" at the tail (in our context, at the end of the body of the 
function)
Anyway...
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1098]
not be pedantic, but i linked to that for the opening two sentences:


In computer science, a tail call is a subroutine call that happens 
inside another procedure as its final action; it may produce a return 
value which is then immediately returned by the calling procedure. 
The call site is then said to be in tail position, i.e. at the end 
of the calling procedure.
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1099]
Okay T_T
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1100x2]
i've never heard tail position refer to last 'physical place'
anyway, not important
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1102]
I just decided it would be a new paradigm :-)
MarcS
3-Oct-2012
[1103x2]
heh, good stuff
thanks again for the help
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1105]
No prob I was lazy on my couch
Ladislav
3-Oct-2012
[1106]
Marc, to no pollute this group I posted a private conversation mentioning 
how to define a TAIL-CALL function using the function spec and how 
to handle the situation even if the function spec is "more complicated" 
than just a block of words.
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1107]
It's Rebol School group here. Why would your post be a pollution 
? I don't get it
Ladislav
3-Oct-2012
[1108]
It is a bit long to my taste, but I can repost here if you prefer. 
Also, BTW, welcome to REBOL, Marc
Steeve
3-Oct-2012
[1109]
Yes wellcome Marc. (Not really a beginner though)

Yes Ladislav I've nothing against a long post here since it's related 
to the topic, or if you prefer you can use a copy/past service in 
the cloud.