Talk:Anonymous recursion: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Forgot signature) |
m (added a query about task description. ~~~~) |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
:Concerning "recursion implies a function", it depends on what you consider a function. The GOSOB in the Basic code snippet is not really a function call. That's why I used the term "call" instead of "function". A Forth solution would involve two or three new immediate control words, similar to BEGIN/WHILE/REPEAT. In the PicoLisp version (and also in your second Ruby version, if I understand it right), the first pass through the 'recur' body does not actually involve a function call, but it is executed in the context of the surrounding function. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Concerning "recursion implies a function", it depends on what you consider a function. The GOSOB in the Basic code snippet is not really a function call. That's why I used the term "call" instead of "function". A Forth solution would involve two or three new immediate control words, similar to BEGIN/WHILE/REPEAT. In the PicoLisp version (and also in your second Ruby version, if I understand it right), the first pass through the 'recur' body does not actually involve a function call, but it is executed in the context of the surrounding function. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
=== completion of the task === |
|||
I am the author of the REXX solution. |
|||
There is a note which says in part: " .. The task was not to check for a negative argument..." |
|||
The task as stated: |
|||
"If possible, ..... which checks for a negative argument before doing the autual recursion." |
|||
I did the neg arg check before the actual recursion. |
|||
In the anonymous call ranch example for REXX, "doThat" was a recursive call for the solution, |
|||
as well as "doMore", which did likewise. |
|||
<br>I can break the REXX code to NOT invoke a recursive call for the solution, but merely delay it, which |
|||
would seem to defeat the purpose of the example (by adding more unecessary code). |
|||
Was it against the rules to have a different version of the recursive call as part of "doThat"? |
|||
[[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |