On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM, andrea crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com> wrote: > The poor algorithm is much more close to the mathematical definition > than the smarter iterative one.. And in your second version you > include some ugly caching logic inside it, so why not using a > decorator then?
I learned Fibonacci as a sequence, not as a recursive definition. So the algorithm I coded (the non-caching one) is pretty much how I learned it in mathematics. But yes, you're right that the caching is inherent to the second version; and yes, that's where a decorator can make it a LOT cleaner. As a demo of recursion and decorators, your original function pair is definitely the best. But if you want to be able to calculate fib(n) for any n without blowing your stack, my version will scale much more safely. But then again, who actually ever needs fibonacci numbers? ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
