[erlang-questions] about tail-recursive

[成立涛]

16 Apr 2008 11:27:48 +0200, Bjorn Gustavsson <bjorn@REDACTED>:
>
> "É¢Î" <litaocheng@REDACTED> writes:
>
> > Hi everyone.
> > Recently I read http://www.erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf
> .
> >  In this paper 3.3.8, the author talk about tail-recursive:
> > "Firstly the non tail-recursive way:
> > factorial(0) -> 1;
> > factorial(N) -> N * factorial(N-1).
> > "
> > I see this section is non tail-recursive. In my mind, the tail-recursive
> is
> > the better, because it do not consuming stack!
>
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>
> > When I read OTP src, I find in the stdlib lists.erl. the map/2 write in
> this
> > style:
> > "map(F, [H|T]) ->
> >     [F(H)|map(F, T)];
> > map(F, []) when is_function(F, 1) -> [].
>
>
> Correct! It is not tail-recursive.
>
> The tail-recursive version would not consume any stack, but it would have
> to
> build a list in reverse order, which it would have to reverse by calling
> lists:reverse/1.
> The stack space and the list consumes exactly the same amount of memory
> (in R12B).
>
> See
>
> http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/myths.html#2.3
>
> /Bjorn
>
> --
> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>

Thank you very much! Bjorn! :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080416/dd94f5c3/attachment.htm>