"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:

> I don't see the interst of recursion in that particular case. A loop would
> have made the same. Recursion depth of at least 96 is enough for whatever I
> could think of. If this internal limitation is not enough for what you want,
> you should change the structure of your code or your approach. But it is
> often very difficult to code what you have in mind, whatever your skill and
> experience are (I have none of them, lol)!!!
>
>     Bruno

I don't know if it's the same in POV, but it stands to reason.  In
programming, at least for complex cases, recursion can be MUCH faster than
a standard loop.  It's true that for this case, a standard loop would have
been sufficient, but I was trying to prove a concept, and a complex case
wouldn't have parsed.


Regards,

ADB

Post a reply to this message