Hello,
Why is there a limitation on the stack size in GHC? Like heap where we can limit the size by -M RTS option but the default is unlimited, why not let the program use as big a stack as required? If not by default, then by a separate option?
Some of the functions that we write in recursive fashion will usually cause a stack overflow, but will work fine if there is more stack (suppose we are not worried about efficiency). And these functions generally look nicer and compact than their tail recursive versions.
Is this is a technical hurdle, or just a checkpoint for runaway programs?
This was discussed a while ago on the ghc users mailing list. I think there was general agreement that this was bad, but that doing something better meant a lot of work for someone (who could be trusted to "get it right" :-) http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2007-May/012467.html Regards -- Adrian Hey