Jeff wrote:
>How are we going to get people to write recursive subroutines if we have
>a factorial operator? :)
>
[snip]
sub offTopic
{
Have you seen Arc's factorial? The "short way" is really weird:
(rec zero 1 * 1-)
But then, the long way is still a bit odd to me, a non-LISPer
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:07 PM +0200 6/11/02, =?latin1?Q?Josef_H=F6=F6k?= wrote:
> >
> >I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, as attachement.
> >Dan is this something you want?
> >I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation
> >waiting. If you wa
Josef Höök wrote:
>
> I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, see attachement.
> Dan is this something you want?
> I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation
> waiting. If you want them i can can make a patch
>
> /Josef
How are we going to get people to write recursive
At 1:07 PM +0200 6/11/02, =?latin1?Q?Josef_H=F6=F6k?= wrote:
>
>I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, as attachement.
>Dan is this something you want?
>I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation
>waiting. If you want them i can can make a patch
I like it, but I think I
I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, as attachement.
Dan is this something you want?
I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation
waiting. If you want them i can can make a patch
/Josef
--- core.ops.orig Tue Jun 11 10:03:19 2002
+++ core.opsTue Jun 11
I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, see attachement.
Dan is this something you want?
I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation
waiting. If you want them i can can make a patch
/Josef
--- core.ops.orig Tue Jun 11 10:03:19 2002
+++ core.opsTue Jun 11 1
