Category talk:Recursion: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(No, but yes, but are you sure?) |
(Pseudocode needs more work) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Pseudocode== |
|||
I'm not too happy with my pseudocode. I added it because I've always found such concepts better explained through pseudocode. -[[User:Slawmaster|Slawmaster]] 17:46, 27 January 2008 (MST) |
I'm not too happy with my pseudocode. I added it because I've always found such concepts better explained through pseudocode. -[[User:Slawmaster|Slawmaster]] 17:46, 27 January 2008 (MST) |
||
:Looks great actually. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:33, 27 January 2008 (MST) |
:Looks great actually. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:33, 27 January 2008 (MST) |
||
:: It could do with a bit more work so that it is clearer what the distinction between normal recursion and tail recursion is; right now, they're the same apart from clause ordering and that's something that any tail-recursion-supporting compiler will take in their stride. (I've tarted it up a bit more by marking ALGOL-like keywords in bold and comment-like bits in italics, which is a common method of presentation.) —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Wording== |
|||
-- |
|||
I don't think that this sentence is true: <i>"The factorial example is best done with a loop."</i> I'm not editing it, though, since I don't quite know why it is there - given that one blatant counter-example (Scheme) is named right after it in the same paragraph. In some languages, the factorial might be best done with a loop, in some other languages, recursion would be the obvious (and best) approach. (In yet others, both might be equally powerful. And for all I know there's some language out there where something yet-completely-different is actually the best approach). [[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 16:40, 28 January 2008 (MST) |
I don't think that this sentence is true: <i>"The factorial example is best done with a loop."</i> I'm not editing it, though, since I don't quite know why it is there - given that one blatant counter-example (Scheme) is named right after it in the same paragraph. In some languages, the factorial might be best done with a loop, in some other languages, recursion would be the obvious (and best) approach. (In yet others, both might be equally powerful. And for all I know there's some language out there where something yet-completely-different is actually the best approach). [[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 16:40, 28 January 2008 (MST) |
||
==Category hacking== |
|||
Is there a way to put the category page into the encyclopedia without making it a subcategory? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:50, 29 January 2008 (MST) |
Is there a way to put the category page into the encyclopedia without making it a subcategory? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:50, 29 January 2008 (MST) |
||
:No. But you could create [[Recursion]], and have it not automatically redirect. But are you sure it wouldn't be appropriate as a subcategory? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 23:30, 29 January 2008 (MST) |
:No. But you could create [[Recursion]], and have it not automatically redirect. But are you sure it wouldn't be appropriate as a subcategory? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 23:30, 29 January 2008 (MST) |
||
::The articles in it aren't really encyclopedic like the ones in [[:Category:Operating Systems|Operating Systems]]. I just wanted the informational page to be in the encyclopedia. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 07:23, 30 January 2008 (MST) |
|||
== Tail recursion == |
|||
Would it be appropriate to put Scheme and other "tail recursive"-type languages in this category since they use recursion so often? If so, which ones fall into that category? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 10:35, 26 February 2008 (MST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 10:58, 6 July 2009
Pseudocode
I'm not too happy with my pseudocode. I added it because I've always found such concepts better explained through pseudocode. -Slawmaster 17:46, 27 January 2008 (MST)
- Looks great actually. --Mwn3d 18:33, 27 January 2008 (MST)
- It could do with a bit more work so that it is clearer what the distinction between normal recursion and tail recursion is; right now, they're the same apart from clause ordering and that's something that any tail-recursion-supporting compiler will take in their stride. (I've tarted it up a bit more by marking ALGOL-like keywords in bold and comment-like bits in italics, which is a common method of presentation.) —Donal Fellows 10:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wording
I don't think that this sentence is true: "The factorial example is best done with a loop." I'm not editing it, though, since I don't quite know why it is there - given that one blatant counter-example (Scheme) is named right after it in the same paragraph. In some languages, the factorial might be best done with a loop, in some other languages, recursion would be the obvious (and best) approach. (In yet others, both might be equally powerful. And for all I know there's some language out there where something yet-completely-different is actually the best approach). Sgeier 16:40, 28 January 2008 (MST)
Category hacking
Is there a way to put the category page into the encyclopedia without making it a subcategory? --Mwn3d 18:50, 29 January 2008 (MST)
- No. But you could create Recursion, and have it not automatically redirect. But are you sure it wouldn't be appropriate as a subcategory? --Short Circuit 23:30, 29 January 2008 (MST)
- The articles in it aren't really encyclopedic like the ones in Operating Systems. I just wanted the informational page to be in the encyclopedia. --Mwn3d 07:23, 30 January 2008 (MST)
Tail recursion
Would it be appropriate to put Scheme and other "tail recursive"-type languages in this category since they use recursion so often? If so, which ones fall into that category? --Mwn3d 10:35, 26 February 2008 (MST)