Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Self-recursion hack #1928

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jun 10, 2016
Merged

Self-recursion hack #1928

merged 7 commits into from Jun 10, 2016

Conversation

pitrou
Copy link
Contributor

@pitrou pitrou commented Jun 9, 2016

This PR revives the approach in PR #719. Self-recursion is supported, only with an explicit signature, and with the same signature in the recursive call(s).

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 9, 2016

Current coverage is 87.35%

Merging #1928 into master will decrease coverage by 0.16%

@@             master      #1928   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           295        298     +3   
  Lines         52650      52856   +206   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches       5433       5456    +23   
==========================================
+ Hits          46076      46171    +95   
- Misses         5663       5764   +101   
- Partials        911        921    +10   
  1. 7 files (not in diff) in numba were modified. more
    • Misses -9
    • Partials +9
  2. File ...ate_lower_listing.py (not in diff) was created. more

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 31dac72...e893950

@datnamer
Copy link

Awesome! Is this a step on the way to full higher order functions?

@seibert
Copy link
Contributor

seibert commented Jun 15, 2016

Not really. This sidesteps the need for changes to our type inference algorithm by pre-registering the signature of the recursive function (which is why we require an explicit type signature for recursion support). Higher order functions are a very different problem. :)

@datnamer
Copy link

Makes sense. Are there any plans to pursue higher order functions?

@seibert
Copy link
Contributor

seibert commented Jun 15, 2016

It's not a high priority at this point. We have a lot more basic issues to solve first.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants