I experimented with this too. It doesn't work out because you need to know at fn definition time and at the call site that you're using a non-standard calling convention. You can't rewrite all functions without a substantial performance overhead, so you need to be selective. Scala has a compiler plugin for type-directed CPS, but you have to annotate the crap out of your functions and things break down in a bad way for generic higher-order functions. If you wanted to take a real run at this in Clojure, you'd have to compile two versions of every function: the usual `invoke` methods plus an `invokeCPS` method with compiler-inserted call-site trampolining code. Then the programmer would still be saddled with ^:cps metadata or similar.

(read this with a mild trollface) Given functions f and g, it is possible to write them as the same function M. Supply an extra argument called "mode": if 0, then the function behaves like f, and if 1, then the function behaves like g. If you want to call f or g, call M with the "mode" argument as 0 or 1 respectively. If f and g take different numbers of arguments, let M take the larger number of arguments, and when you intend to call the function that takes fewer arguments, supply 0s for the extra args. This should indeed implement mutual recursion in terms of self-recursion.

The grandparent commenter did say "Corecursion could (if awkwardly) be converted into ordinary recursion", which I would say is technically correct, which some say is the best kind of correct. (Perhaps he has a somewhat less awkward scheme in mind.)

It occurs to me that the existence (and nature) of "coroutines" probably primes this mistake.