Talk:Stair-climbing puzzle: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Problem statement: ? recursion unnecessary and wrong? ?) |
m (moved Talk:Stair Climbing to Talk:Stair-climbing puzzle) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The problem is ambiguous as stated. It says to climb one step up, not climb up one step up from the starting position. Thus the original C# code that was there solved the 'climb one step up'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.59.209.100|71.59.209.100]]</span> |
The problem is ambiguous as stated. It says to climb one step up, not climb up one step up from the starting position. Thus the original C# code that was there solved the 'climb one step up'. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.59.209.100|71.59.209.100]]</span> |
||
:Okay, I've made it more explicit. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Okay, I've made it more explicit. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Am I wrong or recursion can be simply avoided since the "action" is done indeed into step? So the following C code |
|||
<lang c> |
|||
void step_up() |
|||
{ |
|||
while ( !step() ) ; |
|||
} |
|||
</lang> |
|||
would work? Why is used recursion if indeed <tt>step_up</tt> does nothing more? ... --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Moreover... maybe I am loosing bits however: the recursive C++ solution does not work... Let us suppose the first call to step fails, so that it returns false and the step_up is called again; now let us suppose that at this first level of recursion the step() is successful; the loop exit and control returns to the caller which repeat the loop, that re-execute the step() function... so let imagine now it is successful... this would mean we climbed two steps, not one... I set up my codes to avoid this; if someone explain me why I am wrong I will fix (if time allows:/) --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:59, 6 February 2010
Problem statement
The problem is ambiguous as stated. It says to climb one step up, not climb up one step up from the starting position. Thus the original C# code that was there solved the 'climb one step up'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.209.100
- Okay, I've made it more explicit. —Underscore 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)