Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > microsoft.public.excel.programming > #110111 > unrolled thread

Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure

Back to article view | Back to microsoft.public.excel.programming

Contents

  Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-13 15:14 +0200
    Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2017-07-13 19:52 +0000
      Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-14 00:32 +0200
        Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2017-07-14 19:33 +0000
          Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-14 22:36 +0200
            Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:58 +0100
              Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-16 19:51 +0200
                Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 19:46 +0100
                  Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-17 10:52 +0200
                    Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 12:45 +0100
                      Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-07-17 20:17 +0200
                      Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Living the Dream <noodnutt@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 05:23 -0700
                        Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 17:43 +0100
                          Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-13 02:19 +0200
                            Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:26 +0100
                              Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-14 20:24 +0200
                                Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure GS <gs@v.invalid> - 2017-08-14 23:14 -0400
                                  Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:19 +0100
                                    Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure GS <gs@v.invalid> - 2017-08-15 03:28 -0400
                                      Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:39 +0100
                                  Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-15 12:49 +0200
                                Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:35 +0100
                                  Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-15 11:17 +0200
                                    Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure "Peter T" <askformy@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:21 +0100
                                      Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-15 18:19 +0200
                        Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Bruno Campanini <brunocam@libero.it> - 2017-08-13 03:16 +0200
                          Re: Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure Living the Dream <noodnutt@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 06:08 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#110111 — Recursive To non-Recursive Procedure

Can anybody convert this recursive procedure to a non-recursive one?
========================================
Sub Permutation(Str1 As String, _
    Optional Str2 As String = vbNullString, _
    Optional ByRef Xrow As Long = 1)
Dim i As Integer, xLen As Integer, a As String, b As String

xLen = Len(Str1)
If xLen < 2 Then
    Range("A" & Xrow) = Str2 & Str1
    Xrow = Xrow + 1
Else
    For i = 1 To xLen
        a = Left(Str1, i - 1) & Right(Str1, xLen - i)
        b = Str2 & Mid(Str1, i, 1)
        Call Permutation(a, b, Xrow)
    Next
End If

End Sub
========================================

The procedure is called, in the simplest way, with:
Call Permutation("string-to-permute").

Bruno

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#110112

Bruno Campanini wrote:

> Can anybody convert this recursive procedure to a non-recursive one?

[snip]

> The procedure is called, in the simplest way, with:
> Call Permutation("string-to-permute").

On the one hand, yes, it can be unrolled, using some combination of control 
structures.

On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?

-- 
I am invincible, INVINCIBLE I say! *laughs*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110113

Auric__ formulated the question :
> Bruno Campanini wrote:
>
>> Can anybody convert this recursive procedure to a non-recursive one?
>
> [snip]
>
>> The procedure is called, in the simplest way, with:
>> Call Permutation("string-to-permute").
>
> On the one hand, yes, it can be unrolled, using some combination of control 
> structures.
>
> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?

Why you ask me that?

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110114

Bruno Campanini wrote:

> Auric__ formulated the question :
>> Bruno Campanini wrote:
>>
>>> Can anybody convert this recursive procedure to a non-recursive one?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The procedure is called, in the simplest way, with:
>>> Call Permutation("string-to-permute").
>>
>> On the one hand, yes, it can be unrolled, using some combination of
>> control structures.
>>
>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>
> Why you ask me that?

It's pretty straightforward: What is the purpose of unrolling the recursive 
procedure you posted? What are you trying to accomplish?

Here's a Google search that'll get you started:

  https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive

-- 
Better to die quick, fighting on your feet,
than to live forever, begging on your knees.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110115

Auric__ brought next idea :
> Bruno Campanini wrote:
>
>> Auric__ formulated the question :
>>> Bruno Campanini wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can anybody convert this recursive procedure to a non-recursive one?
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>>> The procedure is called, in the simplest way, with:
>>>> Call Permutation("string-to-permute").
>>> 
>>> On the one hand, yes, it can be unrolled, using some combination of
>>> control structures.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>> 
>> Why you ask me that?
>
> It's pretty straightforward: What is the purpose of unrolling the recursive 
> procedure you posted? What are you trying to accomplish?
There is an algorithm:
        a = Left(Str1, i - 1) & Right(Str1, xLen - i)
        b = Str2 & Mid(Str1, i, 1)
        Call Permutation(a, b, Xrow)
which is well known to the net, whose author is unknown to the net.
It's very simple and efficient and I'd like to preserve in a
non-recursive procedure.
But I am not able to make the conversion.

> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
Really I don't need that.

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110116

"Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>
>>> Why you ask me that?

You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less elegant 
non-recursive alternative as an exercise?

>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
> Really I don't need that.

Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.

Peter T

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110117

Peter T formulated the question :
> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>>
>>>> Why you ask me that?
>
> You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less elegant 
> non-recursive alternative as an exercise?
>
>>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
>> Really I don't need that.
>
> Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.
Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
Why don't you read accurately before writing?

I don't need any practical solution, it's only a matter of
principle.
I would be able to convert that particular algorithm into a
non-recursive procedure, but I'm unable to do so.
Then I put here the question.

Have I satisfied your curiosity?

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110118

"Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
> Peter T formulated the question :
>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why you ask me that?
>>
>> You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less 
>> elegant non-recursive alternative as an exercise?
>>
>>>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
>>> Really I don't need that.
>>
>> Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.
> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>
> I don't need any practical solution, it's only a matter of
> principle.
> I would be able to convert that particular algorithm into a
> non-recursive procedure, but I'm unable to do so.
> Then I put here the question.
>
> Have I satisfied your curiosity?

Not really a matter of curiosity, often asking the objective leads to a 
different approach the OP might not have considered, particularly when the 
reason for the question is not clear. So it's a sort of intellectual 
exercise then, right?

Although any approach will end up doing essentially the same thing your 
algorithm is not directly convertible as it's designed to be recursive.

> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!

Huh, it was a simple search, why the sarcasm, why not try yourself!

> Why don't you read accurately before writing?

AFAIK I did read accurately before posting. Not sure why you're so 
aggressive to people who try to help you.

Peter T 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110119

Peter T explained :
> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>> Peter T formulated the question :
>>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why you ask me that?
>>>
>>> You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less 
>>> elegant non-recursive alternative as an exercise?
>>>
>>>>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>>>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
>>>> Really I don't need that.
>>>
>>> Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.
>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>>
>> I don't need any practical solution, it's only a matter of
>> principle.
>> I would be able to convert that particular algorithm into a
>> non-recursive procedure, but I'm unable to do so.
>> Then I put here the question.
>>
>> Have I satisfied your curiosity?
>
> Not really a matter of curiosity, often asking the objective leads to a 
> different approach the OP might not have considered, particularly when the 
> reason for the question is not clear. So it's a sort of intellectual exercise 
> then, right?
>
> Although any approach will end up doing essentially the same thing your 
> algorithm is not directly convertible as it's designed to be recursive.
Any recursive algorithm is convertible into a non-recursive one...
and vice-versa!
The cost may be a great difficulty, a loss of simplicity, a loss
of efficiency.

>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
> Huh, it was a simple search, why the sarcasm, why not try yourself!
Such a simple search that I tried just before you was born!

>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
> AFAIK I did read accurately before posting. Not sure why you're so aggressive 
> to people who try to help you.
Not to all people, only to all who:
- didn't understand the question
- doesn't have an idea about the solution.
- doesn't hesitate to spend unuseful words... as it costs nothing!

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110120

"Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
> Peter T explained
:
>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>>> Peter T formulated the question :
>>>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why you ask me that?
>>>>
>>>> You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less
>>>> elegant non-recursive alternative as an exercise?
>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>>>>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
>>>>> Really I don't need that.
>>>>
>>>> Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.
>>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
>>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>>>
>>> I don't need any practical solution, it's only a matter of
>>> principle.
>>> I would be able to convert that particular algorithm into a
>>> non-recursive procedure, but I'm unable to do so.
>>> Then I put here the question.
>>>
>>> Have I satisfied your curiosity?
>>
>> Not really a matter of curiosity, often asking the objective leads to a
>> different approach the OP might not have considered, particularly when
>> the reason for the question is not clear. So it's a sort of intellectual
>> exercise then, right?
>>
>> Although any approach will end up doing essentially the same thing your
>> algorithm is not directly convertible as it's designed to be recursive.
> Any recursive algorithm is convertible into a non-recursive one...
> and vice-versa!

Some recursive routines can be 'converted' to non-recursive using 
essentially the same algorithm inside an additional loop. However I don't 
see an obvious way that can be done with your particular algorithm. So it 
means devising a different approach, or instead of re-inventing the wheel 
search as suggested and adapt what best suits the particular objective.

> The cost may be a great difficulty, a loss of simplicity, a loss
> of efficiency.

Typically no significant difference in efficiency, if anything non-recursive 
may be slightly more efficient (in terms of speed) even if less elegant.

>>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
>> Huh, it was a simple search, why the sarcasm, why not try yourself!
> Such a simple search that I tried just before you was born!
>
>>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>> AFAIK I did read accurately before posting. Not sure why you're so
>> aggressive to people who try to help you.
> Not to all people, only to all who:
> - didn't understand the question
> - doesn't have an idea about the solution.
> - doesn't hesitate to spend unuseful words... as it costs nothing!

I don't know what your problem is. I've answered 1000s of question in this 
group going back since before MS adopted it, but rarely come across an 
attitude like yours.

I thought I understood your question, then your replies to Auric confused 
me, I didn't understand why his suggestion wasn't helpful and your 
reluctance to give a reason didn't help. Hence I tried to get a better idea 
of your overall objective before wasting time on something you didn't want.

I use recursive functions extensively and already knew your algorithm, 
though FWIW the particular implementation you posted is inefficient for 
Excel with an input of any more than a few letters.

Peter T 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110121

Peter T was thinking very hard :
> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>> Peter T explained
> :
>>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>>>> Peter T formulated the question :
>>>>> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message >>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, *why* do you want it to be unrolled?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why you ask me that?
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem reluctant to give a reason. Is this homework to find a less
>>>>> elegant non-recursive alternative as an exercise?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a Google search that'll get you started:
>>>>>>>   https://www.google.com/search?q=string+permutation+non-recursive
>>>>>> Really I don't need that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? I found several potential solutions in a few minutes.
>>>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
>>>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>>>>
>>>> I don't need any practical solution, it's only a matter of
>>>> principle.
>>>> I would be able to convert that particular algorithm into a
>>>> non-recursive procedure, but I'm unable to do so.
>>>> Then I put here the question.
>>>>
>>>> Have I satisfied your curiosity?
>>>
>>> Not really a matter of curiosity, often asking the objective leads to a
>>> different approach the OP might not have considered, particularly when
>>> the reason for the question is not clear. So it's a sort of intellectual
>>> exercise then, right?
>>>
>>> Although any approach will end up doing essentially the same thing your
>>> algorithm is not directly convertible as it's designed to be recursive.
>> Any recursive algorithm is convertible into a non-recursive one...
>> and vice-versa!
>
> Some recursive routines can be 'converted' to non-recursive using essentially 
> the same algorithm inside an additional loop. However I don't see an obvious 
> way that can be done with your particular algorithm. So it means devising a 
> different approach, or instead of re-inventing the wheel search as suggested 
> and adapt what best suits the particular objective.
>
>> The cost may be a great difficulty, a loss of simplicity, a loss
>> of efficiency.
>
> Typically no significant difference in efficiency, if anything non-recursive 
> may be slightly more efficient (in terms of speed) even if less elegant.
>
>>>> Oh... you are a very clever man, congratulation!
>>> Huh, it was a simple search, why the sarcasm, why not try yourself!
>> Such a simple search that I tried just before you was born!
>>
>>>> Why don't you read accurately before writing?
>>> AFAIK I did read accurately before posting. Not sure why you're so
>>> aggressive to people who try to help you.
>> Not to all people, only to all who:
>> - didn't understand the question
>> - doesn't have an idea about the solution.
>> - doesn't hesitate to spend unuseful words... as it costs nothing!
>
> I don't know what your problem is. I've answered 1000s of question in this 
> group going back since before MS adopted it, but rarely come across an 
> attitude like yours.
>
> I thought I understood your question, then your replies to Auric confused me, 
> I didn't understand why his suggestion wasn't helpful and your reluctance to 
> give a reason didn't help. Hence I tried to get a better idea of your overall 
> objective before wasting time on something you didn't want.
>
> I use recursive functions extensively and already knew your algorithm, though 
> FWIW the particular implementation you posted is inefficient for Excel with 
> an input of any more than a few letters.

My final conclusion:
- I have a problem we (you and me) are unable to solve
- You like chatting, I don't like it.

Have a good day.
Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110148

FWIW I reckon all you good folk who give of not only your knowledge, but also your time are awesome.

You have helped and got me on the right track on many occasions and am extremely grateful & thankful.

Maybe poor Bruno needs a Group Hug to help him feel better.. :)

I always taught my children & grandchildren the philosophy that you will always attract more ants with honey than with vinegar.

Cheers
Mark.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110165

"Living the Dream" <noodnutt@gmail.com> wrote in message
> FWIW I reckon all you good folk who give of not only your knowledge, but 
> also your time are awesome.
>
> You have helped and got me on the right track on many occasions and am 
> extremely grateful & thankful.
>
> Maybe poor Bruno needs a Group Hug to help him feel better.. :)

LOL!

Silly thing is I might have given him an example of what I think he was 
looking for, and suggested how he could speed up his original function (for 
use in Excel) perhaps by 100x

> I always taught my children & grandchildren the philosophy that you will 
> always attract more ants with honey than with vinegar.

Indeed :)

Peter T

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110167

Peter T explained on 11-08-17 :
> "Living the Dream" <noodnutt@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> FWIW I reckon all you good folk who give of not only your knowledge, but 
>> also your time are awesome.
>>
>> You have helped and got me on the right track on many occasions and am 
>> extremely grateful & thankful.
>>
>> Maybe poor Bruno needs a Group Hug to help him feel better.. :)
>
> LOL!
>
> Silly thing is I might have given him an example of what I think he was 
> looking for, and suggested how he could speed up his original function (for 
> use in Excel) perhaps by 100x

I challenge you to do that!
Don't let me think you are a liar.

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110169

"Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>> LOL!
>>
>> Silly thing is I might have given him an example of what I think he was 
>> looking for, and suggested how he could speed up his original function 
>> (for use in Excel) perhaps by 100x
>
> I challenge you to do that!
> Don't let me think you are a liar.

That's two challenges, significantly speed up your recursive routine as 
posted and come up with a non-recursive alternative.

I could probably do both or I wouldn't have said so. But if you think I'm 
going to spend time working on examples for someone with such an awful 
attitude towards people you don't know who tried to help you think again. It 
is of no concern to me if you want to think I am a liar.

You made the challenges so propose what you will pay if I can demonstrate 
what I suggested. If it's meaningful I'll have a go. Your call.

Peter T 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110178

Peter T explained on 13-08-17 :
> "Bruno Campanini" <brunocam@libero.it> wrote in message
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Silly thing is I might have given him an example of what I think he was 
>>> looking for, and suggested how he could speed up his original function 
>>> (for use in Excel) perhaps by 100x
>>
>> I challenge you to do that!
>> Don't let me think you are a liar.
>
> That's two challenges, significantly speed up your recursive routine as 
> posted and come up with a non-recursive alternative.
>
> I could probably do both or I wouldn't have said so. But if you think I'm 
> going to spend time working on examples for someone with such an awful 
> attitude towards people you don't know who tried to help you think again. It 
> is of no concern to me if you want to think I am a liar.
>
> You made the challenges so propose what you will pay if I can demonstrate 
> what I suggested. If it's meaningful I'll have a go. Your call.

Are you prepared to pay the same if you fail?

Bruno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110179

> Are you prepared to pay the same if you fail?
>
> Bruno

Since I already know Peter can do this, I propose prepayment by you for the 
solution. Don't worry about validation because many of the regulars here will 
handle that for you because clearly your attitude has earned a great deal of 
mistrust here!

-- 
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
Classic VB Users Regroup!
  comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
  microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110180

"GS" <gs@v.invalid> wrote in message
>> Are you prepared to pay the same if you fail?
>>
>> Bruno
>
> Since I already know Peter can do this, I propose prepayment by you for 
> the solution. Don't worry about validation because many of the regulars 
> here will handle that for you because clearly your attitude has earned a 
> great deal of mistrust here!

Do you  know that - I appreciate your confidence:)

So Bruno knows I can't, you know I can, the only one who has not made a 
definite claim I know either way is me!

All I said was I "might" be able to come up with a non-recursive alternative 
and speed up his recursive "perhaps" by 100x.

Peter T 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110181

> "GS" <gs@v.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Are you prepared to pay the same if you fail?
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>
>> Since I already know Peter can do this, I propose prepayment by you for the 
>> solution. Don't worry about validation because many of the regulars here 
>> will handle that for you because clearly your attitude has earned a great 
>> deal of mistrust here!
>
> Do you  know that - I appreciate your confidence:)
>
> So Bruno knows I can't, you know I can, the only one who has not made a 
> definite claim I know either way is me!
>
> All I said was I "might" be able to come up with a non-recursive alternative 
> and speed up his recursive "perhaps" by 100x.
>
> Peter T

I was basing my assertion on our history! Frankly, though, I wouldn't waste the 
time unless you really wanted to give it a shot...

-- 
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
Classic VB Users Regroup!
  comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
  microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110183

"GS" <gs@v.invalid> wrote in message
>> "GS" <gs@v.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> Are you prepared to pay the same if you fail?
>>>>
>>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> Since I already know Peter can do this, I propose prepayment by you for 
>>> the solution. Don't worry about validation because many of the regulars 
>>> here will handle that for you because clearly your attitude has earned a 
>>> great deal of mistrust here!
>>
>> Do you  know that - I appreciate your confidence:)
>>
>> So Bruno knows I can't, you know I can, the only one who has not made a 
>> definite claim I know either way is me!
>>
>> All I said was I "might" be able to come up with a non-recursive 
>> alternative and speed up his recursive "perhaps" by 100x.
>>
>> Peter T
>
> I was basing my assertion on our history! Frankly, though, I wouldn't 
> waste the time unless you really wanted to give it a shot...

As I've already said I'm certainly not going to waste my time unless he 
wants to pay for it. If he does I'll give it a shot.

Peter T 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | microsoft.public.excel.programming

csiph-web