Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: pineapple.link@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:18:39 -0700
Thanks - I hope I'm learning a little something here. Tell me - why
is it a waste to keep the accumulator in the data structure (albeit
cunning, as you mentioned), and what is the advantage of the way you
do it?
Again, thanks.
(It is quite difficult to get the "hang" of this "thinking
recursively," but I'm trying, and at least I did come up with a
recursive solution, albeit an ugly one, heh)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: bart demoen
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- References:
- Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: pineapple . link
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: pineapple . link
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: Pierpaolo BERNARDI
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: Steve Harlow
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: bart demoen
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: pineapple . link
- Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- From: bart demoen
- Any way to tail-recurse this?
- Prev by Date: Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- Next by Date: Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- Next by thread: Re: Any way to tail-recurse this?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|