Anonymous user
Talk:Subset sum problem: Difference between revisions
→how many solutions?: added comment about worthwhile optimization (or not). -- ~~~~
(→how many solutions?: added comment about the way REXX handles the resolving of subroutine invocations. -- ~~~~) |
(→how many solutions?: added comment about worthwhile optimization (or not). -- ~~~~) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 35:
:::::::: Come to think of it, did the interpreter just call the shell when it couldn't resolve "combN"? That's seriously naughty. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 07:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Yes, that's the way REXX works. Any function/subroutine not in the program, REXX just looks elsewhere. Normally, it would be another REXX program in a common repository (such as a folder) for such things. There's nothing in the language to distinguish a subroutine that could be written in REXX, assembler, Java, etc. This is due to the environment that REXX was developed in, where any program can invoke another program, no matter what language it was written in (where program invocation had a common linkage). This is a mechanism to force REXX to look outside the program for subroutine execution by inclosing the subroutine name in quotes or apostrophes. As an aside, someone has written an interface for REXX to call (use) any Java subroutines (I'm not sure what Java calls such stuff). It's the writing of the linkage (interface) that's tricky. REXX has the same difficulity as PL/I does, it's variable types are, for a lack of a better word, so non-traditional that PL/I had to resort to something called
:: After saying I wasn't going to optimize the REXX program (two versions are now on RC), I kept thinking about the program and eventually made it over a magnitude times faster. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:: After upgrading the 2nd version of the REXX program that sorted the names by their weights (and realizing the order of magnitude improvement), it seemed rediculus to keep the much slower version around, so it was deleted and the 2nd version was enhanced to sort the output which presents the names in alphabetical order, thus preserving the original order of the names. Much more optimization could be made, but I'm not sure the effort would be worthwhile. I may come back to this program after my other computer is freed up from its heavy usage. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 05:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||