[plt-scheme] append!?

Or trampolines? But gcc has a tail-call optimization, I thought.

As far as closures go, I agree that it won't really be closures, which
is why I wondered if that disqualified this way of writing it. But it
seems reasonably close.

Robby

On 10/22/07, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> I don't think you can -- you'll need something like libffi to create C
> closures and then use CPP for a syntax for them, and you'll still need
> to implement environments yourself.  But to CPS you also must have
> tail calls -- which you might mimic by jumping around with gotos, but
> by now you'll have a Scheme implementation...
>
>
> On Oct 22, Robby Findler wrote:
> > You mean programming with explicit closures somehow doesn't count? (I
> > can probably make C macros that help me avoid most of the boilerplate
> > associated with it.)
> >
> > Robby
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> > > Personally, I've always liked Joe Marshall's definition of a
> > > functional language as one that you can program in CPS in.  This
> > > includes Scheme, but not C, and maybe not Java.
> > >
> > > sam th
>
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                   http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!
>