From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: tail recursion hack in Emacs Lisp? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:53:00 GMT Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1089997059 5320 80.91.224.253 (16 Jul 2004 16:57:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 16 18:57:36 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BlW1e-000071-00 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:57:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BlW4C-0006Ng-A7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:00:12 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!charlie.risq.qc.ca!53ab2750!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 7 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.204.24.84 Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca Original-X-Trace: charlie.risq.qc.ca 1089996780 132.204.24.84 (Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:53:00 EDT) Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:53:00 EDT Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:124338 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:19674 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:19674 > So my question is: Can anybody think of a case where this approach > would break? I have another question: why is it better than CL's `do' ? Stefan