[gambit-list] "Number of arguments exceeds implementation

Bill Richter richter at math.northwestern.edu
Wed Sep 6 15:23:20 EDT 2006


Thanks, Guillaume!  So I was wrong.  Would you call your definition of
map* CPS? I think of your k as the continuation.  Is it any faster
than reverse first & then do the easy recursive function?

   No mutation, no 'reverse'.  I think tail-recursion isn't the
   property you're thinking about, but rather whether such an
   algorithm can be executed in O(1) space (then only mutation would
   help, not using 'reverse').

That might be what Christian meant :-D I generally get confused by
words like O(1).  But I wouldn't think your CPS code was going to be
very fast.  I'd say that the usual recursive program was using a lot
of stack space, as there are so many pending operations.  I'd say that
your CPS version was just storing this stack space in the body of a
lambda, and that's gotta be stored somewhere, right?




More information about the Gambit-list mailing list