proc trampoline form {
while 1 {
set new [subst $form]
if {$new eq $form} break
set form $new
}
set form
}Testing with the classic factorial - either constant 1 is returned, or a bracketed expression for the next trampoline jump: proc fac n {
expr {$n<=1? 1: "\[expr $n * \[fac [incr n -1]]]"}
}Direct call returns a string to be substituted:% fac 5 [expr 5 * [fac 4]]But on a trampoline, it jumps:
% trampoline {[fac 5]}
120In the dialect developed in Playing TRAC, factorial looks like this: DS fac {[GR $1 1 "\[ML $1 \[CL fac [SU $1 1]]]" 1]}The structural similarity should be evident.See also Tail call optimization
RS 2005-08-01: A different approach that does not go over string reps every time (which is known as inefficient when doing arithmetics). The "trampolined" function returns 1 if it can continue, and modifies variables in caller's scope via upvar:
proc facstep {_in _res} {
upvar 1 $_in in $_res res
if {$in>1} {
set res [expr {$res * $in}]
incr in -1
return 1
} else {return 0}
} The trampoline bounces the step function as long as it promises to deliver more: proc fac in {
set res 1
while {[facstep in res]} {}
set res
} Larry Smith I once used something like this to provide pseudo-multitasking in a single-thread environment. It was a Turbo-Pascal program, of all things, on an original IBM 8088 PC. Background tasks had no loops. They went once through and returned 1 if they should be called again. These tasks were called over and over, as appropriate depending on the return values, while busy-waiting for the key strobe. The system was quite flexible and very easy to understand and code.DKF: It should be noted that Tcl 8.6's NRE uses a trampoline at the level of the C stack. It's almost an identical concept to above, except that there's a somewhat more sophisticated mechanism in place (so there may be multiple scheduled continuations instead of just one).

