knocte

My feedback

  1. 270 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    17 comments  ·  F# Language  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    knocte supported this idea  · 
  2. 311 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    23 comments  ·  F# Language  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    I am generally in favour of addressing this in F# 4.x+. I would want seq { .. } and async { … } tailcalls to also be addressed.

    A more detailed design is needed and some trialling would be great. Jack’s work is a great start. However, this is not an easy piece of work to do in a non-invasive way and my own experiments in this area have not yet led to something I feel confident to include in the F# language design.

    An implementation and testing would need to be provided by someone in the F# community (possibly including Microsoft or Microsoft Research, though not limited to them).

    Currently, initial implementations of approved language design can be submitted as pull requests to the appropriate branch of https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp. See http://fsharp.github.io/2014/06/18/fsharp-contributions.html for info on how to contribute to the F# language/core library design

    I encourage you to consider continue…

    knocte commented  · 

    @Jack: awesome work!

    knocte supported this idea  · 
    knocte commented  · 

    @Philip, aha I understand. But I think if such keyword is proposed, I think it would be better if it's for opting-out the warning than opting-in.

    knocte commented  · 

    @Phillip: as far as I understand, it's always desirable to be tail-call-friendly, otherwise you might get StackOverflowExceptions if there are many iterations, right?

    knocte shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base