Allowing "non-eligible" tail calls

[thysultan]

Not throwing in non-tail call eligible tail calls surfaces an opportunity to support the collapsing of stack traces.

This is related to:

Another potential benefit of STC is that we know what the developer is intending and can give warnings or errors for, for example, claiming they're about to do a tail call and not putting the call in tail position.

Instead of throwing/warning. There's often a use case for library authors to attempt to remove as much as possible of library specific "call-traces" from the stack trace, especially in production. For example Firefox has pursed something akin to this in their dev-tools experience.

This may be a problem for developers who use this information to debug their programs

This may also be an opportunity to provide framework and library authors the ability to explicitly opt-into or opt-out of displaying library specific stack traces that often plagues consoles in both Node.js and the Browser.

[ljharb]

That’d need to be an entirely separate proposal, and since stacks aren’t in the language yet pending https://github.com/tc39/proposal-error-stacks, it might be a bit too soon for it.

[thysultan]

It is however predicated on "ptc syntax" at least considering this in its design if we are to avoid yet another syntax grammar provisioned for the stack traces case; assuming that is a desirable goal to begin with.

[ljharb]

I don’t see how; the use case for opting out of stack frames applies to all functions, with or without tail call usage.