[retroforth] Re: RetroForth 8.0 later>
- From: Charles Childers <charles.childers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: retroforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:21:58 -0500
> But this will run into a tail recursion problem. Every ")" before ";" is not
> needed and with tail recursion turned on it will cause bad behaviour. At the
> time I called the word "later>", I did not see it as "ending tag". There was
> no good reason to use "later>" directly before ";". For ")" there are good
> reasons (like readability) to be used before ";".
So far I've tested it on a 30-deep nesting without any problems. Of
course I'm also using these at run time, not compile time, which could
make a difference. Further tests will come in early February.
--
Charles Childers
http://www.retroforth.org
Other related posts:
