Talk:Fibonacci sequence: Difference between revisions
Possibly misleading use of 'iterative' in Haskell subsection ?
(Possibly misleading use of 'iterative' in Haskell subsection ?) |
|||
Line 199:
:: Would you be happy to fall back to English descriptions of the sets ? It's possible that these limitations will eventually be overcome in MediaWiki or the Math extension. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
==Possibly misleading use of 'iterative' in Haskell subsection ?==
Hi [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] , I notice that the ('''fibonacci by folding''') Haskell example has just been moved under the heading 'Iterative'. I wonder if that doesn't risk confusing a little, or even possibly misleading ?
Folds are implemented recursively (either directly or indirectly) in the Prelude, and are generally understood as 'recursion schemes' in the sense of Meier et al. (See, for example, http://blog.sumtypeofway.com/an-introduction-to-recursion-schemes/ and the much-read paper which it references).
I also notice that other examples which have ended up in the 'Iteration' section might risk compounding a reader's confusion – they are either implemented by direct and immediate recursion on on helper functions like '''go''' and '''next''', or are expressed in terms of zipWith, which is also implemented as a recursive function.
Perhaps 'iteration' is not quite the clearest or best fitting term to use here ?
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 19:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
| |||