http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms163418.aspx
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:41 AM, bryan
rasmussen<rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Dimitre Novatchev<dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:19 AM, bryan
>> rasmussen<rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Kay<mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> anyway, recursion problems are likely to be a problem in .NET
>>>>> / C#, as far as I know currently the only .NET language that
>>>>> can compile and optimize for tail recursion is F#..
>>>>
>>>> Well, I know of at least two others: XSLT and XQuery, as implemented by
>>>> Saxon.
>>>>
>>> I don't think those would be considered as .NET languages, those are
>>> languages implemented in .NET. Sorry if I was imprecise earlier.
>>>
>>
>> 1. Quite some of Bryan's statements about how "System.Xml.Xsl" does
>> work are far from correct. One of them is that tail recursion is not
>> supported. Tail recursion *is* optimized by XslCompiledTransform in
>> non-debugging mode.
>>
> I never said that Tail recursion is not supported in XSLT or
> system.xml.xsl. I said that the only .NET language I am aware of where
> it is supported is F# - I'm not sure if I would consider an XSLT
> compiled via XslCompiledTransform B to be a '.NET language' (I believe
> I used the example of C#) , I haven't really thought about it though -
> would you say it is?
>
>> 2. To the original OP: The message by Saxon is generally presented
>> whenever Saxon runs out of memory -- this may or maynot be caused by
>> recursion stack overflow!
>
>>
>> To summarize: Prefer using DVC recursion to tail-recursion as a
>> practical way to avoid the recursion stack overflow problem.
>
> you're right of course, specifically as regards the practicality - but
> it is annoying when I know I have a function that is properly tail
> recursive and it overflows anyway...(This would be a C# problem, not
> XSLT in System.XML.XSL)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen