Talk:Binary search: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→Pascal: oops. I meant to say Python) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== PARI/GP example ==
The PARI/GP example, I find it to be insufficient. omg triggered. Lol... WaTcH mEhh cOdE oNe UPPPPPP. I'll derive it from the N/t/roff example. :P By the way, there is a URL somewhere at the bottom and my Internet is literally 56K dialup. So, I have removed that URL out so I won't get that slow-loading CAPTCHA box. I will regret this edit when I'm not a teenager. I promise.
Haha! Looks like we created the [[Binary Search|same task]] around the same time. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 23:46, 7 November 2007 (MST)
:I guess we did. Sorry for the mess I made initially...it was the first time I made a new page for a task. --[[User:mwn3d|mwn3d]] 29:21, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Line 19 ⟶ 22:
why not high=mid-1
and low=mid+1
?
</pre>
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 12:00, 3 December 2013
== Recursive binary search in C ==
Is there any reason why <code>n</code> is passed as argument in <code>int bsearch_r (int *a, int n, int x, int i, int j)</code> ? --[[User:Natema|Natema]] ([[User talk:Natema|talk]]) 05:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
: I agree with your hint - that parameter does look to be unnecessary. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 11:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
== MATLAB ==
It seems the initial value for 'high' in the iterative example is too low:
<pre>high = numel(list) - 1; </pre>
For a list with one entry, the solution shown will access element 0 of 'list', out of bounds.
| |||