|P is for Practical|
Re^3: Non-recursive Ackermannby ikegami (Pope)
|on Feb 04, 2011 at 16:24 UTC||Need Help??|
[ Just a few rushed little comments ]
I reached the same conclusions.
That's why I used fib at first and called Ackermann a whole other ball game.
Any divide and conquer algorithm, for starters. That's where the dependency graph came in. I wanted to see if there was a split in it that could be exploited.
I didn't know what I was going to end up with when I started. The code got refactored multiple times. I didn't micro-optimise.
(Upd: Put differently, the snippet is a theoretical implementation, not a practical one. Work still needs to be done to make it practical. Well, as practical as Ackermann can be. )
It's what the code I learned from used. I've never used while (1). I like for (;;) cause I read it as "for ever". Trivia: Since the entire bound check of while (CONSTANT) gets optimised away, and since "while" and C-style "for" use the same opcodes, while (1) and for (;;) are practically identical internally.