Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Recursion
Message-ID: <639@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 21:46:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.639
Posted: Thu Sep  5 21:46:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 11:24:47 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <163@ho95e.UUCP> <367@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 14
Summary: 


In article <240@zuring.UUCP> dik@zuring.UUCP (Dik T. Winter) writes:
>>
>>Concerning the recent discussion of FORTRAN and recursion: I think recursive
>>routines should have to be declared as such, as in (gasp) PL/I.  Not because
>>of efficiencies gained by knowing when a routine is recursive, but as an aid
>>in writing correct code.  ...
>
>Of course, but in than case you have a new problem.  The system should check
>whether the routine you declared as non-recursive is non-recursive indeed.
>(What about routine 1 calling routine 2; which in turn calls routine 1.
>I have had uses for this in a non-recursive way.)

Well, yes, I also think the linker should check such things.  Along with
checking subprogram arguments for number, type, and direction...