alt Hacker NewsThe article explains most of this, but the key takeaway for beginners once this lands is: With `become` you can write tail calls in Rust and it will promise they either work or don't compile, you can't have the case (which exists in several languages) where you thought you'd written a tail call but you hadn't (or maybe you had but you switched to a different compiler or made a seemingly inconsequential change to the code) and now the stack has overflowed.
Rust has been really good at providing ergonomic support for features we're too used to seeing provided as "Experts only" features with correspondingly poor UX.
Replies
Clojure’s “recur” form works similarly in that it’s guaranteed to be tail recursive, and if it isn’t the compiler will throw an exception.
I like this change. I was wondering if I would've preferred to have something on the function signature (eg `tcc_fn foo() ...` as in Tail Call Constrained fn) and when encountering that the rust compiler would make checks about whether the body of the function is tail-callable.
My fear is that adding yet another keyword it might get lost in the sea of keywords that a Rust developer needs to remember. And if recursion is not something you do often you might not reach for it when actually needed. Having this signal in the function signature means that people would be exposed to it just by reading the documentation and eventually will learn it exists and (hopefully) how to wield it.
What do you folks think?
"Either it works or doesn't compile" compared to "oops it silently degraded to the less performant thing because an invariant stopped being true" is remarkably similar to how I tend to describe the benefit of having move semantics by default with opt-in copies in Rust compared to in C++ where you need to set up things right and might still accidentally have it copy if you mess it up.