Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pjmlp·

It still doesn't, this is a compiler specific language extension.

You won't find anything on ISO/IEC 9899:2024 about tail calls, like it happens on Scheme.

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf

Section 3.5 of R7RS.

https://standards.scheme.org/official/r7rs.pdf

View on HN

A formal technical specification (TS) extension is already being drafted: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3582.pdf That's a step up from the usual proposals. I'm not sure what criteria is used to decide whether to first create a TS vs just incorporating a change into the working draft of the next standard.[1] _Defer also seems to be taking the TS route.[2]

1. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3886.pdf

2. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3928.pdf

There's some discussion of how C29 defer ended up in a TS at https://thephd.dev/c2y-the-defer-technical-specification-its... .

Well, even if that lands on the official standard, that means C29 as probable release year for C2y, plus adoption of the exact form across compilers to be able to rely on it being available.

Plus the fact that an implementation that recognizes the new syntax and produces an error whenever it encounters it will be conforming.

On such an implementation, the feature is available but useless.

Woops, I meant to write tail call optimization not tail calls. Shouldn't have used the term interchangeably. Yeah I'm aware that C doesn't have proper tail calls. Thanks for the correction though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com