Subject:
|
recursion (was RE: Would-be hacker queries.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 May 1999 21:38:12 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Joel Shafer <joel@connect.*StopSpammers*net>
|
Viewed:
|
734 times
|
| |
|
|
Here is an interesting article on implementing stack free recursion.
http://www.olympus.net/biz/7seas/recurse.html
At 10:36 PM 5/11/99 +0000, you wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, rhempel@bmts.com (Ralph Hempel) writes:
> > You are right, but recursion carries a terrible price in terms of stack
> > usage. Most recursion is useful for implementing search and traversal
> > algorithms, but unless the hardware supports DEEP stacks for the worst
> > case, the problem is almost always better solved the iterative way...
>
> Don't modern implementations of Lisp/Scheme/Logo automatically convert tail-
> recursion into iteration?
>
> --Todd
> --
> Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
Joel Shafer joel@connect.net
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: recursion (was RE: Would-be hacker queries.)
|
| Hi, Important clarification: "data stack" free recursion. This is an important significance. It's really only useful for systems with no data stack.... or alternately as an interesting conversation piece. What's usually more clever is using data (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Would-be hacker queries.
|
| (...) You are right, but recursion carries a terrible price in terms of stack usage. Most recursion is useful for implementing search and traversal algorithms, but unless the hardware supports DEEP stacks for the worst case, the problem is almost (...) (25 years ago, 11-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
