[m-dev.] require_tail_recursion(name/arity, [none])

[Julien Fischer]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 at 14:47, Zoltan Somogyi <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
>
> Would anyone object if I replaced this syntax with a new pragma
> named suppress_tail_recursion(name/arity)? It would make documenting it
> significantly easier. (The internal representation already corresponds to the
> proposed new syntax, because it is clearer.)

Is that not conflating two things? The requirement that a predicate
uses constant
stack space with warning suppression about a lack of tail recursion.

The name require_tail_recursion fits with the other assertion-like constructs
in the language (e.g. require_det, require_feature_set).

Julien.