On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:04:41 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
>> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
>> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did delib
On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Chris Angelico
> yes, bit of a Bible geek as well as a programming geek
So you don't believe in genetic algorithms, then ?
(ducking for cover)
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did deliberately fold
> all of Europe down to one entity, and I did
rantingrick wrote:
> On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>>> Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
>
> Jeez, speaking of bad colloqui
rantingrick wrote:
> On May 18, 7:19 am, Peter Moylan
> wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to note that the definitions of 'recursive' to be found
>> in Wikipedia and Wiktionary have very little in common with the
>> definitions to be found in the dictionaries covered by Onelook. No
>> wonder experts
On May 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> > Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> > case of destroying data!
>
> > What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> > recursion to stop it? If
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> case of destroying data!
>
> What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
> cont
On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair,
On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:58 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Yes "Gas Pedal"... that clears up all the confusion .
> However i would have thought if the vehicle had a "decelerator petal"
> it would at least sport a complimentary "accelerator petal". You know
> the whole "equal and opposite thing"?
Call
On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> >> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> >> M
On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> >> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> >> M
On May 24, 5:06 pm, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> > pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> > Motion in order to drive cars?
>
> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy
On May 20, 1:55 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Trust me on this, if the audience of Carry On films could understand
> recursion, anyone can!
Well we could also say that this pathetic display of metal
masturbation is recursive also.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 18, 3:00 pm, Xah Lee wrote:
> In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
> possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
> directory but not delete all files in it?
Actually i think this case is more for "scare factor" than anything.
As
On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> > No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>
> > Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>
> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
Jeez, speaking of bad colloquialisms...
"""if you'
On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> > No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>
> > Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>
> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
Jeez, speaking of bad colloquialisms...
"""if you'
On May 18, 7:19 am, Peter Moylan
wrote:
> It's interesting to note that the definitions of 'recursive' to be found
> in Wikipedia and Wiktionary have very little in common with the
> definitions to be found in the dictionaries covered by Onelook. No
> wonder experts in different areas have troub
On Sun, 29 May 2011 05:58:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Geeks tend to have larger vocabularies than non-geeks, on average;
> probably akin to our love of word games and precision (two distinct
> notions that bridge surprisingly often).
And also because more educated people in general tend to
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:25 AM, GSO wrote:
> The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese
> Proverb (So I'm told at least, I'd check with the Chinese first though ;)
See, I thought it was "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom", but the Chinese don't worshi
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese
Proverb (So I'm told at least, I'd check with the Chinese first though ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> Is it [the term 'incinerate'] that widespread? I figured most people
> woul speak of burning. OK, my bad if it is.
I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk
On 2011-05-25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I know many people who have no idea what a directory is, let alone a
> subdirectory, unless it's the phone directory. They're non-computer
> users. Once they start using computers, they quickly work out what the
> word means in context, or they ask and ge
On May 20, 12:00 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Indeed. And the algorithms that are employed to perform the operations
> so described are recursive.
Actually, they almost never are. Iterative algorithms are almost
always used to avoid a stack explosion. However, the terminology is
still
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
You really do
need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.
Actually, you need to know whether your car can burn 85 gas (at
about 60 cents /gallon cheaper... and, whether 85 gas will have enough
energy to move the car without using 35% more fuel...
* sal migondis (Thu, 26 May 2011 17:50:32 -0400)
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, sal migondis
> wrote:
> > From: Thorsten Kampe
> > It's unnecessary bullshit buzzword bingo from nerds which adds or
> > helps or explains nothing. It's just that simple.
>
> This has nothing to do with buzzword
On May 26, 4:20 am, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> Did your mom tell you to "recursively clean up your room"?.
that had me L O L!
i think i'll quote in my unix hating blogs sometimes, if you don't
mind. ☺
Xah
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> From: Thorsten Kampe
> Subject: Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:46:58 +0200
> To: python-list@python.org
>
> * Steven D'Aprano (26 May 2011 10:06:44 GMT)
>>
>>
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
> Did your mom tell you to "recursively clean up your room"?.
>
Considering that I don't have a wardrobe with a portal to Narnia, no,
she has never had to tell me to clean up the room inside my room.
Anyway, my room's full. There's no room i
* Charles (Thu, 26 May 2011 20:58:35 +1000)
> "Thorsten Kampe" wrote in message
> news:mpg.284834d227e3acd1989...@news.individual.de...
> >
> > If someone has learned what a directory or folder is, you don't have
> > to explain what "include sub-folders" means. Instead of creating a
> > new myste
I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
(Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
she's nontechnical.)
She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
further". I think that's a fair, if not perfectly accurate,
explanation.
Actually... if
"Thorsten Kampe" wrote in message
news:mpg.284834d227e3acd1989...@news.individual.de...
>
> If someone has learned what a directory or folder is, you don't have to
> explain what "include sub-folders" means. Instead of creating a new
> mysterious term ("recursively delete"), you simply explain s
* Steven D'Aprano (26 May 2011 10:06:44 GMT)
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:48:07 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>
> > But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm
> > -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these
> > options in the exact same terms. N
On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:48:07 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm
> -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these
> options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r,
> --recursive -- remo
* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 22:58:21 GMT)
>
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
>
> > What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than
one
> > person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> > recursively?' meant. BAut never have I b
* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 21:59:58 GMT)
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>
> > Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> > case recursion) is a classical WTF.
>
> *If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world
> obj
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> ... For everyone else, I'll use an
> ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or
> "recursive".
Overheard yesterday: "Our conversation was recursing..." I don't know
what they were talking about, but I'm pretty sur
On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
understanding recursion.
>>>
>>> Why would you presume this
On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> case recursion) is a classical WTF.
*If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world
objects. Think about the exceptions:
microwave oven
vacuum cl
On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:14:27 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
>> On May 23, 9:28 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Because I do not consider its behaviour to be errant. And I suspect
>>> its main developers won't either. That's why I suggested you grab t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> well said.
>
> half of posts in this thread are from idiots. just incredible, but
> again, its newsgroups ... what am i thinking ...
>
> Xah
>
Thank you. As soon as we figure out which half of us you just publicly
insulted, we'll see about gettin
On May 25, 12:26 am, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> * Rikishi42 (Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> > >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
* Rikishi42 (Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200)
>
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
> >>> understanding recursion.
> >>
> >> Why would you presume this to
On May 24, 3:06 pm, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
> >>> understanding recursion.
>
> >> Why would you presume this to be related t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.
Which is why I raised the issue with regard to other operations.
Manipulating files matching a glob can be done recursively or
On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>>> understanding recursion.
>>
>> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
>> not about being
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> On May 23, 9:28 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Because I do not consider its behaviour to be errant. And I suspect
>> its main developers won't either. That's why I suggested you grab the
>> sources and make The Perfect Emacs.
>
> why don't you try
On May 23, 9:28 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> > why don't you file a bug report? In GNU Emacs 23.2, it's under the
> > Help menu. I suppose it's the same in other emacs distro.
>
> Because I do not consider its behaviour to be errant. And I suspect
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> why don't you file a bug report? In GNU Emacs 23.2, it's under the
> Help menu. I suppose it's the same in other emacs distro.
>
Because I do not consider its behaviour to be errant. And I suspect
its main developers won't either. That's why I sug
On May 22, 4:32 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> > the context is this: In emacs directory manager (aka dired), when you
> > call dired-do-delete on a directory, emacs prompts, this way:
> > “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n)”
>
> But in order to make y
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:56:03 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-20, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
>>
>>> [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should
>>> not be foisted onto lay users.]
>>
>> I think that is a patronizing rem
On 2011-05-20, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
>
>> [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should not
>> be foisted onto lay users.]
>
> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> intelligence of lay people and o
On 2011-05-20, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
>: It starts with the misconception (or should I say confusion?) between
>: performing a recursive job and using a recursive tool to do it. And then it
>: blazes off in these huge discusions about semantics to define a definition
>: of an abstraction
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> the context is this: In emacs directory manager (aka dired), when you
> call dired-do-delete on a directory, emacs prompts, this way:
> “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n)”
But in order to make your point (such as it is), you are ignoring the
fact t
On May 22, 3:46 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> > Xah wrote:
> > «In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
> > possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
> > directory but not delete all files i
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Xah Lee wrote:
> Xah wrote:
> «In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
> possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
> directory but not delete all files in it?
> »
>
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> It
Xah wrote:
«In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
directory but not delete all files in it?
»
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> It might *try* to delete the directory but not any of its contents
On 2011-05-19, Peter Moylan wrote:
> In the microcontroller world, the big performance hits come from the
> fact that the only available compilers are for C and sometimes C++.
> (And nobody uses assembly language except for the very little jobs.)
> The nature of the C language prevents compilers
2011-05-21 11:54, Lars Enderin skrev:
> 2011-05-21 11:52, Lars Enderin skrev:
>>
>> Please include attributions, in this case for Peter Moylan and rusi!
>
> Just Peter Moylan, sorry!
Ignore the above.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
2011-05-21 11:52, Lars Enderin skrev:
>
> Please include attributions, in this case for Peter Moylan and rusi!
Just Peter Moylan, sorry!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
2011-05-21 10:32, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard skrev:
>> The supposed inefficiency of recursive implementations is based
>> largely on the properties of hardware that is now obsolete. With
>> modern processors there's no great efficiency hit. In some of the
>> smaller microcontrollers, it's true, you
The supposed inefficiency of recursive implementations is based
largely on the properties of hardware that is now obsolete. With
modern processors there's no great efficiency hit. In some of the
smaller microcontrollers, it's true, you do have to worry about stack
overflow; but the ARM processo
On 20 May 2011 18:21, rusi wrote:
> On May 20, 1:48 pm, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> > On 20 May 2011 06:55:35 GMT, Steven D'Aprano <
> steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> >
> > : On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
> > :
> > : > [I agree with you Xah that recursion is
On May 20, 1:48 pm, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 06:55:35 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> : On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
> :
> : > [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should not
> : > be foisted onto lay users.]
> :
> : I think th
On 20.5.2011 3:38, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes:
t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
This will only work if there is a backpointer to the parent.
No, you don't need backpointers; some cases have been menti
On 20 May 2011 06:55:35 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
: On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
:
: > [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should not
: > be foisted onto lay users.]
:
: I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
: intellige
I think what happens is that the “recursive” has become a idiom associated with
directory to such a degree that the unix people don't know what the fuck they
are talking about. They just simply use the word to go with directory whever
they mean the whole directory.
In the emacs case: “Recursiv
On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:59:45 -0500, Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> Recursion: (N). See recursion. See also tail recursion.
caching proxy (n): If you already know what recursion is, this is the
same. Otherwise, see recursion.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
AFAICS what emacs calls "recursive delete" is what the ordinary person
would simply call "delete". Presumably the non-recursive delete is
called simply "delete" but is actually something more complicated than
delete, and you're supposed to know what that is.
The "non-recursive delete" would be
〈English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively〉
http://xahlee.org/comp/idiom_directory_recursively.html
--
English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively
Xah Lee, 2011-05-17
Today, let's discuss something in the category of lingustics.
You know how in unix
On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
> [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should not
> be foisted onto lay users.]
I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
understanding re
On Wed, 18 May 2011 07:19:08 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Roland Hutchinson writes:
>
>> Sorry to have to contradict you,
>
> Don't be sorry.
>
>
>> but it really is a textbook example of recursion. Try this psuedo-code
>> on for size:
>>
>> FUNCTION DIR-DELETE (directory)
>> FOR
On May 20, 2:21 am, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-18, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
>
> > Now Mac OS X has maintained the folder concept of older mac generations,
> > and Windows has cloned it. They do not want the user to understand
> > recursive data structures, and therefore, naturally, avoid t
On Thu, 19 May 2011 23:21:30 +0200, Rikishi42
wrote:
: On 2011-05-18, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
: > Now Mac OS X has maintained the folder concept of older mac generations,
: > and Windows has cloned it. They do not want the user to understand
: > recursive data structures, and therefore, n
t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes:
>
>> t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>> >
>> > This will only work if there is a backpointer to the parent.
>>
>> No, you don't need backpointers; some cases have been mentionned in the
>> other answer, but
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
Ignored, since I don't follow that group.
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 20:20:01 +0200, Raymond Wiker
>wrote:
> : I don't think anybody mentioned *binary* trees. The context was
> : directory traversal, in which cas
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes:
> t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> >
> > This will only work if there is a backpointer to the parent.
>
> No, you don't need backpointers; some cases have been mentionned in the
> other answer, but in general:
>
> (defun parent (tree node)
>
On 2011-05-18, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> Now Mac OS X has maintained the folder concept of older mac generations,
> and Windows has cloned it. They do not want the user to understand
> recursive data structures, and therefore, naturally, avoid the word.
You imply they want to keep their user
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
On Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:28 +0200, Raymond Wiker
wrote:
: I said tree operations, not tree walks. A tree operation might
: involve several tree walks.
OK. The original claim under dispute regarded tree walks.
:
rusi wrote:
> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Peter Moylan
> wrote:
>> ObAUE: In common parlance, the English word "recursion" means pretty
>> much the same as what computing people call "iteration". This might be
>> the first time I have ever found a point of agreement with Xah Lee.
>
> Maybe the common us
On 17/05/2011 23:20, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
Though, if you think about it, it's not exactly a correct description.
“Recursive”, or “recursion”, refers to a particular type of algorithm,
or a implementation using that algorithm.
Only when used as progr
Xah Lee :
>In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
>possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
>directory but not delete all files in it?
My understanding is that non-recursive means, I think there are no (non-
empty?) subdirectories, or I
On 05/18/2011 02:50 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> Recursion: (N). See recursion.
The index of IBM's Document Composition Facility SCRIPT/VS Text
Programmer's Guide, Release 3.0 (form SH35-0069-2), put it thus:
> Circular definition
> See definition, circular
> definition
> circular 211
>
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 21:09:15 +0200, Raymond Wiker
>wrote:
> : > In the sense that the tree itself is a stack, yes. But if we
> : > consider the tree (or one of its branches) to be a stack, then
> : > the origin
Hans Georg Schaathun écrivit:
: also, in the rsync case: “This would recursively transfer all files
: from the directory … ”, what does the word “recursively” mean there?
Exactly the same as it does in «listing the directory recursively»
or «deleting the directory recursively».
Traversing r
On 5/17/2011 3:26 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
might be of interest.
〈English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively〉
http://xahlee.org/comp/idiom_directory_recursively.html
--
English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively
Xah Lee, 2011-05-17
Today, let's discuss so
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
On Wed, 18 May 2011 21:09:15 +0200, Raymond Wiker
wrote:
: > In the sense that the tree itself is a stack, yes. But if we
: > consider the tree (or one of its branches) to be a stack, then
: > the original claim becomes a tautology.
:
: No
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 20:20:01 +0200, Raymond Wiker
>wrote:
> : I don't think anybody mentioned *binary* trees. The context was
> : directory traversal, in which case you would have nodes with an
> : arbitra
t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> Well, unless you have a tree with backpointers, you have to keep the
> entire parent chain of nodes visited. Otherwise, you won't be able to
> find the parent node when you need to backtrack. A standard tree
> representation has only directional link
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Raymond Wiker wrote:
>> You are right that I assumed parent pointers of some description;
>> but it does demonstrate that tree walks can be done iteratively,
>> without keeping a stack of any sort.
>
> Except that the chain of parent pointers *would* constit
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
On Wed, 18 May 2011 20:20:01 +0200, Raymond Wiker
wrote:
: I don't think anybody mentioned *binary* trees. The context was
: directory traversal, in which case you would have nodes with an
: arbitrary (almost) number of children.
If we ar
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
> On 18 May 2011 09:16:26 -0700, Thomas A. Russ
>wrote:
> : Well, unless you have a tree with backpointers, you have to keep the
> : entire parent chain of nodes visited. Otherwise, you won't be able to
> : fi
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Thomas A. Russ wrote:
> Well, unless you have a tree with backpointers, you have to keep the
> entire parent chain of nodes visited. Otherwise, you won't be able to
> find the parent node when you need to backtrack. A standard tree
> representation has only direc
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
On 18 May 2011 09:16:26 -0700, Thomas A. Russ
wrote:
: Well, unless you have a tree with backpointers, you have to keep the
: entire parent chain of nodes visited. Otherwise, you won't be able to
: find the parent node when you need to backtra
Harrison Hill wrote:
> No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>
> Recursion: (N). See recursion.
If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
Recursion: (N). See recursion. See also tail recursion.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
--
http://
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
> On 17 May 2011 23:42:20 -0700, Thomas A. Russ
>wrote:
> : Tree walks are the canonical example of what can't be done in an
> : iterative fashion without the addition of an explicitly managed stack
>
> Of cour
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:15 AM, rusi wrote:
>> What you're failing to explain is why you would consider that function
>> to be recursive from a programming standpoint.
>
> As for putting + under the format of primitive recursion, it would go
> something like this (I guess)
>
> Matching up that de
On May 18, 7:32 pm, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, rusi wrote:
> >> Um, it is. Consider the simple function (lambda x, y: x + y).
> >> Mathematically, this function is recursive. Algorithmically, it is
> >> not. Do you disagree?
>
> > See the definition of primitive recurs
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, rusi wrote:
>> Um, it is. Consider the simple function (lambda x, y: x + y).
>> Mathematically, this function is recursive. Algorithmically, it is
>> not. Do you disagree?
>
> See the definition of primitive recursion eg.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primiti
On May 18, 5:09 pm, Peter Moylan
wrote:
>
> ObAUE: In common parlance, the English word "recursion" means pretty
> much the same as what computing people call "iteration". This might be
> the first time I have ever found a point of agreement with Xah Lee.
Maybe the common usage mirrors the facts
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
