## Re: [saxon] 'rule of thumb' re tail/non-tail recursion? (Was: Doesn'tSaxon optimize tail recursion ?)

 Re: [saxon] 'rule of thumb' re tail/non-tail recursion? (Was: Doesn'tSaxon optimize tail recursion ?) From: James A. Robinson - 2007-01-04 17:53:55 ``` > Generally, depth of recursion is unlikely to be a problem when you are > simply recursing down the levels of a tree. You're unlikely to run out of > stack until about 500 levels deep or so, and trees are rarely that deep. It Thank you, then I won't worry about it. > calculate a running total. Remember that tail-call optimization doesn't > actually improve speed significantly, all it does is to conserve stack > space. Yep! I was just seeing if I needed to worry about depths of 20-50. I do assume something as deep as 500 is going to occur in this system I'm working on! Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - James A. Robinson jim.robinson@... Stanford University HighWire Press http://highwire.stanford.edu/ +1 650 7237294 (Work) +1 650 7259335 (Fax) ```

 Re: [saxon] 'rule of thumb' re tail/non-tail recursion? (Was: Doesn'tSaxon optimize tail recursion ?) From: James A. Robinson - 2007-01-04 17:53:55 ``` > Generally, depth of recursion is unlikely to be a problem when you are > simply recursing down the levels of a tree. You're unlikely to run out of > stack until about 500 levels deep or so, and trees are rarely that deep. It Thank you, then I won't worry about it. > calculate a running total. Remember that tail-call optimization doesn't > actually improve speed significantly, all it does is to conserve stack > space. Yep! I was just seeing if I needed to worry about depths of 20-50. I do assume something as deep as 500 is going to occur in this system I'm working on! Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - James A. Robinson jim.robinson@... Stanford University HighWire Press http://highwire.stanford.edu/ +1 650 7237294 (Work) +1 650 7259335 (Fax) ```