on goto
in [ASM]
|
From: io_x on 8 May 2010 02:50 "Lie Ryan" <lie.1296(a)gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:4be4b38f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > On 05/08/10 10:39, Lie Ryan wrote: >> On 05/08/10 04:33, Daniel T. wrote: >>> Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> wrote: >>>> "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> writes: >>>>> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6 May, 08:50, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote: >> I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support >> recursion. > > except for assembly, perhaps... or some very ancient or jokular languages with assembly is possible to write recursions functions too
From: Juha Nieminen on 8 May 2010 03:07 In comp.lang.c++ io_x <a(a)b.c.invalid> wrote: > with assembly is possible to write recursions functions too That's like saying that C supports object-oriented programming.
From: gwowen on 8 May 2010 04:46 On May 8, 1:39 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support > recursion. Standard Fortran, prior to 1990. It was not a bad idea, given the limited stack space on most machines, and the likelihood of stack overflow. Especially given you can always do tail recursion by hand (ObOnTopic: ... using goto.)
From: Nathan Baker on 8 May 2010 06:25 "Juha Nieminen" <nospam(a)thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4be50dcf$0$2544$7b1e8fa0(a)news.nbl.fi... > In comp.lang.c++ io_x <a(a)b.c.invalid> wrote: >> with assembly is possible to write recursions functions too > > That's like saying that C supports object-oriented programming. Of course it does! C certainly has support for data structures. There is absolutely no high-level language feature that can't also be implemented in C and ASM. Nathan.
From: Nathan Baker on 8 May 2010 06:34
"Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:daniel_t-BE6842.14333007052010(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net... >> Can a container contain another container, which in turn contains >> another container? If so, isn't a nested loop the most natural way to >> traverse the elements? > > Then you would need an infinite number of find functions, one for each > dimension count. (i.e., a find for 1D arrays, a find for 2D arrays, a > find for 3D arrays, a find for 4D arrays, etc.) That's silly. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity Maybe our entire 4D universe is represented by a 1D array?? If so, screw the warp drive... we just need to arrange a buffer-overflow, insert our own code (guess we need to know what processor it runs on) and we can transport ourselves to another planet in an instant. :) Nathan. |