Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gitpyr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!gitpyr!scott
From: scott@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Holt)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Recursion
Message-ID: <712@gitpyr.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 15:02:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.712
Posted: Sat Aug 31 15:02:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 06:21:12 EDT
References: <909@oddjob.UUCP> <163@ho95e.UUCP> <367@ttrdc.UUCP> <624@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: NE Ga. Smurf Hunting Association.
Lines: 31
Summary: what about indirect recursion

In article <624@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> 
> Concerning the recent discussion of FORTRAN and recursion: I think recursive
> routines should have to be declared as such, as in (gasp) PL/I.  Not because
> of efficiencies gained by knowing when a routine is recursive, but as an aid
> in writing correct code.  I believe that making an inadvertent recursive call
> (which generally results in a semi-infinite loop) is a not-uncommon error,
> and that it is unusual to make a correct recursive call without being aware
> that that is what one is doing.
> 

    I think that would be a good idea, but wouldnt it be limited to direct
recursion ( i.e. routine A calls A as apposed to A calls B, B calls A ). I
don't know PL/I, but I would think including such a check for anything other
than direct recursion would be a royal pain for a compiler writter.

                             - Scott.

-- 
---------
Where we are going and from whence we came are completly unknown to us...
and personaly, I have no idea where I am now.

Scott Holt
Georgia Tech Po Box 36199
Atlanta, GA 30332

...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!scott
...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!scott

                        I WANT MY MTV!