Recursion

[=?Utf-8?B?c2VlbWE=?=]

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

I'm sorry, no one told me there would be a test today....
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

"seema" <se***@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:AD**********************************@microsof t.com...

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without
the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[=?Utf-8?B?c2VlbWE=?=]

This is not a test I just took some samples from book and trying to solve it
.. Please help me.

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[=?Utf-8?B?TW9kZWxCdWlsZGVy?=]

Can you clarify what MyFunction does? What is it's output?

"seema" wrote:

This is not a test I just took some samples from book and trying to solve it
. Please help me.

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[=?Utf-8?B?TW9kZWxCdWlsZGVy?=]

Nevermind. I see your previous post. To do it without recursion, just
figure out what it is really doing. You can do this with a loop.

"ModelBuilder" wrote:

Can you clarify what MyFunction does? What is it's output?

"seema" wrote:

This is not a test I just took some samples from book and trying to solve it
. Please help me.

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )
>
>

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

where is Myfunction code?
"seema" <se***@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:AD**********************************@microsof t.com...

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without
the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[Mythran]

"ModelBuilder" <Mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:EC**********************************@microsof t.com...

Nevermind. I see your previous post. To do it without recursion, just
figure out what it is really doing. You can do this with a loop.

"ModelBuilder" wrote:

>Can you clarify what MyFunction does? What is it's output?

"seema" wrote:

This is not a test I just took some samples from book and trying to
solve it
. Please help me.

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but
without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

Without giving away one possible solution....I will write this in
descriptive, non pseudo, non actual code :)

I would not use a loop in my own code, rather I would rely on the framework
for doing it for me. You can do this using the Reverse method of the Array
class, after converting the string to a character array, then pass the
results of the Reverse method to the constructor of the string class.
Voila, results!

:)

HTH,
Mythran

[raylopez99]

According to my textbook on Pascal, written by Robert L. Kruse, any
recussive problem can (and should) be made into a more efficient non-
recursive problem.

The solution is to employ a stack, do stuff you need to do in a loop,
then pop off the stack stuff that you put off. It's straightforward,
once you get used to it. In fact I find recursion harder to understand
than a loop.

In fact I'm writing code for traversing an N-ary tree non-recursively
right now.

Just put your mind to it.

RL

[Peter Duniho]

raylopez99 wrote:

According to my textbook on Pascal, written by Robert L. Kruse, any
recussive problem can (and should) be made into a more efficient non-
recursive problem.

The solution is to employ a stack, do stuff you need to do in a loop,
then pop off the stack stuff that you put off. It's straightforward,
once you get used to it. In fact I find recursion harder to understand
than a loop.

If you refactor a recursive algorithm so that it uses an explicit stack,
it's still essentially recursive.

Many algorithms implemented recursively can in fact be implemented
iteratively, _and_ without using a stack. Tail recursion is the
classic, obvious example. But if all you're doing is moving the stack
from the compiler-generated code to your own code, then you've done
little else but to obfuscate the underlying algorithm and create more
work for yourself, without changing the basic recursive nature of the
algorithm.

Pete

[=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=]

Okay. (BTW, it would correctly be referred to as MyMethod):

public static MyMethod MyMethod(MyMethod myMethod)
{
return myMethod;
}

Works for me, friend! Garbage in, garbage out....

--
Recursion: see Recursion
site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

[Tom Porterfield]

seema wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )

Hint: look at string.ToCharArray() and Array.Reverse().
--
Tom Porterfield

[Steven Nagy]

On Aug 14, 11:18 am, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]
<[e-mail] :

Okay. (BTW, it would correctly be referred to as MyMethod):

public static MyMethod MyMethod(MyMethod myMethod)
{
return myMethod;

}

Works for me, friend! Garbage in, garbage out....

--
Recursion: see Recursion
site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
BlogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"seema" wrote:

Write a function that produces the same output as MyFunction but without the
use of recursion.
( perfect C# is not a requirement, you may write in pseudo code )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I liked this response.
I just looked up the definition of recursion:

Recursion (noun): See 'Recursion'

[Ian Semmel]

-----Original Message-----
From: raylopez99 [mailto:ra********@yahoo.com]
Posted At: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 8:30 AM
Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp
Conversation: Recursion
Subject: Re: Recursion

According to my textbook on Pascal, written by Robert L. Kruse, any
recussive problem can (and should) be made into a more efficient non-
recursive problem.

The solution is to employ a stack, do stuff you need to do in a loop,
then pop off the stack stuff that you put off. It's straightforward,
once you get used to it. In fact I find recursion harder to understand
than a loop.

In fact I'm writing code for traversing an N-ary tree non-recursively
right now.

Just put your mind to it.

I reckon that a good example of recusion is writing a function that
processes an include directive in a file and that the include files can
contain includes.

Parsing directory structures and trees also lend themselves naturally to
recursion.

(The example often used of factorials doesn't).

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

>
I reckon that a good example of recusion is writing a function that
processes an include directive in a file and that the include files can
contain includes.

Parsing directory structures and trees also lend themselves naturally to
recursion.

(The example often used of factorials doesn't).

Hi,

Back in my univ days I was taugh recursion using Hanoi towers :)

[raylopez99]

On Aug 13, 3:43 pm, Peter Duniho <[e-mail]:

raylopez99wrote:

Many algorithms implemented recursively can in fact be implemented
iteratively, _and_ without using a stack. Tail recursion is the
classic, obvious example.

And many cannot I suppose? :-)

I was thinking--and so far with my N-ary tree it seems to be working--
of storing the 'state variables' of the algorithm (in my case the
nodes that are next to go through the iterative loop)--on the stack.
So you're not really wasting memory, since these nodes are tiny, nor
are you replicating the itteration, insofar as I can tell. And I
can't figure out any other way of traversing and/or building the N-ary
tree, without adding pointers within the nodes, which, come to think
of it, is not a bad idea (though storing pointers within the nodes
also is a cost, in terms of extra memory used by each node), but not
the way I'm proceeding at the moment.

RL