Category talk:Recursion: Difference between revisions
(Should be in the encyclopedia, but not as a subcategory) |
(No, but yes, but are you sure?) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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) |
|||
Revision as of 06:30, 30 January 2008
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)
--
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)
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)