🚀 go-pugleaf

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