On donderdag, sep 4, 2003, at 00:55 Europe/Brussels, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 14 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:34:33 +1000 From: David Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: use-revolution digest, Vol 1 #1865 - 13 msgs To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Your comments above puzzle me. I have no need to post the URL because you just did. When I click on the url you posted I go to the routine I wrote and published myself. It does not mention, point to, and is not derived from, anything by Ben.
While always a theoretical possibility, it is nigh-impossible in practice that this will bump into a limit, the default recursion depth allowing for over 700 directories deep, as Dar has mentioned.
Further, it is a real recursive handler, pre-order, depth-first. The fact it is a function is normal for a recursive routine which returns data.
The repeat loops within it simply list the files within the directory at which you have just arrived (pre-order process) and steps through the immediate sub-folders for depth-first recursive searching. What here is "not real"?
Finally, it works without "correction". I know because (a) I just copied and pasted the code into a test stack and ran it successfully and (b) it is the code I already use in other stacks anyway; with zero problems of course.
I appreciate your interest in the topic but not the mis-statements about recursion or my code.
First let me appologize because you seem to be a bit offended by my statements.
Please forgive me as English is not my native language.
But the part :
< which points to Ben Rubinstein's directory walking function.
Which is not a real recursive handler, but a repeat loop buried in a function.
Only this script as it is, will not work and has to be corrected. >
does not point to you or your code. As a matter of fact your code works perfectly
up to the recursionLimit (I am already sorry for saying this).
It points to the handler of Ben Rubinstein. And I am not accusing him either
(please give me some slack). The problem with his handler is the following line:
if char 1 of x <> "." then
put ("/" & subPath) & return after folders2do #### problem line
end if
If you step trhough the code you will see why.
Then there is the problem of the use of the term "recursion".
A repeat loop is recursive and a handler can be recursive if it calls itself.
But here are 2 different mechanisms at work. And that's why there is a huge difference
between the 2.
So I know the function is using recursion inside the repeat loop but is not recursing by calling itself.
That's why I did call it a non recursive "handler/function". No offense meant.
regards David
Greetings, WA
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
