Interesting.  I could definitely see a bill of materials for some
manufacturers exceeding 255 levels.  So why use recursion if the "old"
methods work every time and give up to 32,767 levels with memory allocation?

I can almost see a maintainability benefit since one would not have to deal
with memory allocation and arrays (or multi-occurrence data structures, but
I'm not certain that benefit is worth sacrificing the flexibility.

Perhaps more thought on my part will yield better answers.

Thanks all.

Donald R. Fisher, III
Project Manager
The Roomstore Furniture Company
(804) 784-7600 extension 2124
DFisher@roomstoreeast.com

<clip>
The only limitation is that procedures calls are limited in depth.  It was
255.  It could have been raised in the newer releases.
<clip>
If you need a greater depth than whatever the recursion limit is, you would
need to fall back to the old methods.
<clip>


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.