Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Recursive function to find a node in the DOM Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:05:31 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 56 Message-ID: <1516357.lIjpcpmlPf@PointedEars.de> References: <4508534.oS5OQyzpKv@PointedEars.de> <4b1cb0ba-f0b0-4b25-a1aa-692c30e69833@googlegroups.com> <1625412.DiW0shChWm@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1437487742 23575 eJwNxscBwDAIBLCVQjkw41DM/iM4egliZO1qMMVihb8kPv8uJHLuTFSNuxJXZCPGaLUNvqCTDyVUEWs= (21 Jul 2015 14:09:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:09:02 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLLYRA5fAM/xJ2Z8rLdtAIW9vILPpey4HUilM0nsZ0l4roC+f5pL4CmseVIB3DOUhM/krNFQM= Cancel-Lock: sha1:BmYpfVKyT4jjo0dJZzYygP3dxNk= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLo3xBTqHEv4TduYbEpIWHOZ1rnIcBqmcJDI8VxRT1ISekb+J17wm9wvMDNAERrQ== Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:28461 danca (Daniele Campagna) wrote: > Il 07/21/2015 01:53 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto: >> danca (Daniele Campagna) wrote: >>> Il 07/19/2015 12:59 AM, Scott Sauyet ha scritto: >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> There is no "javascript". [ ... ] >>>> Keep tilting at that windmill. The rest of us know better. >>> :-) >> So *that* is what you *really* think. Noted. > > Mr. Lahn, Contrary to real life, in Usenet it is “you can say you to me” *unless* offense has been given. > please don't take early deductions. A smile is just a smile, > referred to this old quarrel about "Javascript", and in no way > irrespective of you or your recognized knowledge. (You mean “disrespectful”, I presume.) ACK. > And it is referred to an old thread, too, in wich Scott was humorous about > that [not sure he remembers the thread and me anyway]. So I believe to $ > know he is usually quite benign and more on the side of humour than on the > one of sarcasm. Not my experience and impression. Historically, Scott has always supported the irresponsible approach of the blissfully ignorant of “show me where it breaks”, and resorted to personal attacks when the flaw in that thinking was made apparent. > And so am I, then "absit injuria risis"! That would probably be «rīsū» (ablative, for “concerning the smile”; cf. «verbum»). >>> "logically correct" is a part of your answer i like very much, but "a >>> recursive solution is clear and elegant" is what really made my day ;-) >> You are easily amused. This "logic" is flawed. > > With due respect, a recursive algorythm hardly demonstrates flawed > logic, I think [if it works]. The flawed "logic" is the one that is based on the claim that the recursive algorithm would be “logically correct” in this case. That appears to me to be self-evident as the recursive algorithm can fail while the iterative one can *never* fail under the same circumstances. And as for “clear and elegant”, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder; it has nothing to do with logic. -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.