Yeah, I won&#x27;t try to speak for Eric or the SpiderMonkey team. Maybe Eric is firmly in support of STC, but in my experience he&#x27;s very good at going beyond just implementation concerns and considering all the design constraints (one of which is the cost&#x2F;benefit analysis of new syntax to the user model). IMO the important question isn&#x27;t who supports what but what&#x27;s the best outcome. AFAICT, all three of PTC, STC, and no tail calls are on the table, but there&#x27;s more hashing out to be done.<p>Your new wording seems totally fine -- sorry if I was pedantic, and I&#x27;m really not bent out of shape about your blog post. I just want to be sure that people don&#x27;t get confused about where things stand. New features such as STC require time to bake (which is part of what the multi-stage lifecycle for proposals is all about) -- I only meant to clarify the state of the discussion.<p><i></i>Edit:<i></i> Grrr, re-reading this it <i>still</i> feels like I&#x27;m speaking for Eric. He&#x27;s his own guy, I should shut up about his position! All I mean to say is, I don&#x27;t think anyone should be staking out strong positions at this point in syntax design. The design process is iterative and uncovers new constraints and effects, and we should all keep open minds and work collaboratively. I&#x27;m open to all possible outcomes: PTC, STC, no tail calls at all. Tricky space!