home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!cs.uiuc.edu!sparc0b!pjl
- From: pjl@cs.uiuc.edu (Paul Lucas)
- Subject: Re: Recursive templates
- Message-ID: <Bxvu9t.Csv@cs.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.uiuc.edu
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- References: <83733@ut-emx.uucp> <1992Nov16.220526.21566@borland.com> <Bxu3J4.F93@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov17.172152.14255@borland.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:53:52 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In <1992Nov17.172152.14255@borland.com> pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) writes:
-
- >In article <Bxu3J4.F93@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pl2440@meibm31.cen.uiuc.edu (Paul Jay Lucas) writes:
- >>
- >>*****> Has anyone got a *real* justification for this? This is a very
- >> obfuscated way of writing factorial.
-
- > Has anyone got a *real* justification for recursive functions? They
- >just provide a very obfuscated way of writing factorial().
-
- *****> Some algorithms are naturally recursive; most (other) people
- would agree that factorial is naturally expressed recursively.
-
- > The point of my original posting was simply that there is no work to
- >be done to specify how such things work, because they already work in exactly
- >the way you'd expect.
-
- *****> Huh? I don't understand that paragraph.
-
- >Whether there are useful things that can be done with
- >such constructs is left as an exercise for the reader...
-
- *****> No, the point is whether it should be mandated that recursive
- templates be part of the standard or not. If they're trivial to
- implement in compilers, then go ahead; if not, then I think
- justification is in order.
- --
- - Paul J. Lucas University of Illinois
- AT&T Bell Laboratories at Urbana-Champaign
- Naperville, IL pjl@cs.uiuc.edu
-