Re: [Flashforth-devel] jumping without a return

[Christopher H. <chr...@li...>]

So far the following has not crashed:
scheme@(guile-user)> (define (foo) (display "|") (sleep 1) (eval-string 
"(bar)"))scheme@(guile-user)> (define (bar) (display "-") (sleep 1)
(eval-string "(foo)"))scheme@(guile-user)> (foo)|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|...
-----Original Message-----From: Mikael Nordman <
mik...@fl...>To: Christopher Howard <
chr...@li...>Cc: 
fla...@li...Subject: Re: [Flashforth-devel]
jumping without a returnDate: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:28:04 +0300

What I meant to ask was if the the cross function tail jump works when
using eval("foo") at the tail ?
On 2021-04-22 19:35, Christopher Howard wrote:
> It works fine so long as the procedure call is at the end of calling
> procedure. Scheme standard guarantees tail call optimization. In
> other cases you might get a return stack overflow.
>  
> When you define the first of the two procedures, you get a warning
> that the other procedure might not be defined. Or at least this is
> how it works in Guile scheme:
>  
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define (foo) (display "|") (sleep 1) (bar))
> ;;; <stdin>:13:38: warning: possibly unbound variable `bar'
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define (bar) (display "-") (sleep 1) (foo))
>