Like `[uplevel] 1` except that it also causes the current scope to terminate, though the command is looked up in the current context first. Consequence of [NRE].





 proc fred {} {
     george
 }
proc george {} {
 proc george {} {
      tailcall harry
 }

If I call fred, it's almost as though fred called harry directly, instead of george.  Not so?
[MS]:  yup - all traces of george are gone from the program stack when harry is
[MS] yup - all traces of george are gone from the program stack when harry is called. Now, if harry resolves to a different command in george's current namespace than it would under fred's, the harry that is called is george's and not fred's (no diff if the commands are FQ, of course).
I think this does pretty much what delegation is supposed to do, right?

----

[AMG]: Sounds a lot like '''exec''' in [Unix shells].
[AMG]: Sounds a lot like `exec` in [Unix shells].  See [execline] for more
----
See also [TIP]#[http://tip.tcl.tk/327%|%327]

----
***Interaction with [try]***
===
'''%''' proc foo {} {puts "I'm foo"}
'''%''' proc bar {} {puts "I'm bar"; try { tailcall foo } finally { puts "exitting" }}
''I'm foo''
I'm foo
''I'm bar''
I'm bar
exitting
I'm foo
31-03-2015 [HE] I'm sure ;-) that I don't understood what happend there. Why "exiting" is printed before "I'm foo" when I call bar?

[wdb]: Apparently, the `tailcall` closes one of the last gaps in
!!!!!!
%| [Category Command] |%
!!!!!!