I wanted to see the impact of tail recursion optimization and want to write simple factorial function in a 开发者_开发知识库tail recursion optimized way.
Im new to Scheme and trying to make function that is (in f u x), u is integer, x is a list and f binary function. The scheme expression (in + 3 \'(1 2 3)) should return 3+1+2+3=9.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references,or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, a
I origin开发者_运维百科ally tried writing this without being tail recursive, as according to http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/myths.html the BEAM does it itself. It works, I\'m just wonderin
Code to determine the lat element of a list, using pattern matching: @tailrec def last_rec[A](list : List[A]) : A = {
I coded 3 factorial algorithms: I expect to fail by stack overflow. No problem. I try a tail recursive call, and convert the previous algorithm from r开发者_开发技巧ecursive to iterative. It doesn\'
Given the following code: import scala.util.Random object Reverser { // Fails for big list def reverseList[A](list : List[A]) : List[A] = {
As far as I understand开发者_开发问答, a tail recursive function calls itself at the very last step (like the return statement) however, the first instance of the function is not terminated until all
Imagine thi开发者_Python百科s code: int foo() { return foo(); } The compiler can optimize this. Can I force the compiler to use a new stack frame for foo, instead of using the same stack frame (per
I\'m implementing a function as following: void Add(list* node) { if(this->next == NULL) this->next = node;
加载中,请稍侯......