MarkLogic XQuery tail call optimization

I rewrote a recursive function that was overflowing the stack to use an accumulator, since I thought ML was optimizing this pattern. However, I'm still getting a stack overflow exception. Is there anything wrong with this function wrt tail call optimization?

xquery version "1.0-ml";

declare variable $BATCH-DURATION := xs:dayTimeDuration("P5D");

declare function local:start-times(
  $datetime-start as xs:dateTime,
  $datetime-end as xs:dateTime,
  $acc as xs:dateTime*
) as xs:dateTime+
{
  if (($datetime-end - $datetime-start) le $BATCH-DURATION) then $acc
  else local:start-times($datetime-start + $BATCH-DURATION, $datetime-end, ($acc, $datetime-start))
};

local:start-times(xs:dateTime('1800-01-01T17:45:42'), xs:dateTime('2017-10-10T17:45:42'), ())[last()]

I believe the tail call optimization only works if the return value of the function is untyped.

That is, try:

declare function local:start-times(
  $datetime-start as xs:dateTime,
  $datetime-end as xs:dateTime,
  $acc as xs:dateTime*
)
{

Hoping that helps.

Combination of memorization and tail call optimization

I recently learned about a powerful way to use decorators to memoize recursive functions. "Hey that's neat, let's play with it!" class memoize: """Speeds up a recursive function""" def __init__(self, function): self

Is Swift implementing tail call optimization? and in a case of mutual recurrence?

In particular if I have the following code: func sum(n: Int, acc: Int) -> Int { if n == 0 { return acc } else { return sum(n - 1, acc + n) } } Will Swift compiler optimize it to a loop? And does it so in a more interesting case below? func isOdd(n: I

vs2010 c ++ tail call optimization

Consider the following code: int fac_aux( int x, int res ) { if( x == 1 ) return res; else return fac_aux( x - 1, res * x ); } int fac( int x ) { return fac_aux( x, 1 ); } int main() { int x = fac( 50 ); std::cout << x; return 0; } According to gene

Does Frege perform tail call optimization?

Are tail calls optimised in Frege. I know that there is TCO neither in Java nor in languages which compile to JVM bytecode like Clojure and Scala. What about Frege?Frege does Tail Recursion Optimization by simply generating while loops. General tail

How is tail call optimization implemented in DrScheme?

I've heard that trampolining is an ineffective way of implementing TCO. How does DrScheme (PLAI Scheme, technically) do it? Does it do it the 'right' way (that is, produce assembly code which directly branches to the tail call, instead of going throu

How can a flyer like Babel implement tail call optimization when it is not inherently supported?

Even with trampoline/bind, an infinite recursion should hit memory/time higher for every iteration, so how does Babel implement this even when it is not supported currently?Babel tries to rewrite the recursion as a simple loop, you can see that in th

Why does Scala not do the call optimization of the tail?

Just playing with continuations. The goal is to create function which will receive another function as parameter, and execution amount - and return function which will apply parameter given amount times. The implementation looks pretty obvious def n_

Do ML family compilers do sophisticated optimization for tail calls?

I (believe) the following function definition is tail-recursive: fun is_sorted [] = true | is_sorted [x] = true | is_sorted (x::(y::xs)) = if x > y then false else is_sorted (y::xs) Trivially, it's equivalent to the following declaration fun is_sorte

F # Rear call optimization with 2 recursive calls?

As I was writing this function I knew that I wouldn't get tail call optimization. I still haven't come up with a good way of handling this and was hoping someone else might offer suggestions. I've got a tree: type Heap<'a> = | E | T of int * 'a * He

Generate Tail Call Opcode

Out of curiosity I was trying to generate a tail call opcode using C#. Fibinacci is an easy one, so my c# example looks like this: private static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine(Fib(int.MaxValue, 0)); } public static int Fib(int i, int a

Why does Optimizing Tail Calling Require Op Code?

So I've read many times before that technically .NET does support tail call optimization (TCO) because it has the opcode for it, and just C# doesn't generate it. I'm not exactly sure why TCO needs an opcode or what it would do. As far as I know, the

How to check if gcc performs a tail recursion optimization?

How do I tell if gcc (more specifically, g++) is optimizing tail recursion in a particular function? (Because it's come up a few times: I don't want to test if gcc can optimize tail recursion in general. I want to know if it optimizes my tail recursi

Optimizing the tail call to Go

A relatively random and probably trivial question - Does the Go programming language, as of now, optimize tail calls? If not, does it at least optimize tail-recursive calls of a function to itself?Everything you can find over the Internet, that "Go s

Optimizing the tail call C

I often hear people say that C doesn't perform tail call elimination. Even though it's not guaranteed by the standard, isn't it performed in practice by any decent implementation anyhow? Assuming you're only targeting mature, well implemented compile

Related Articles