4 ms·
> so that the recipe is truly recursive Recursion doesn't imply infinite recursion; a recipe doesn't have to invoke itself to be a recursive recipe. Surely a r
by denton-scratch 3y ago
> so that the recipe is truly recursive
Recursion doesn't imply infinite recursion; a recipe doesn't have to invoke itself to be a recursive recipe. Surely a recursive recipe is just a recipe that invokes a recipe.
This is completely normal; see Escoffier. E.g. for Cod Mornay, "Make a roux".
Escoffier's recipes were often just a single paragraph; you were supposed to know how the target tastes and looks.
Making sourdough is arguably infinitely recursive. You can break the recursion by looking up "Make a sourdough starter".
- dmd 3y ago> a recipe doesn't have to invoke itself to be a recursive recipe Er, no. That IS exactly what recursion means. It doesn't have to be infinite - there can be a halt condition - but if something doesn't call itself, it is not recursive. These are not recursive recipes at all; they're just nested.
- MarkusQ 3y ago> Surely a recursive recipe is just a recipe that invokes a recipe. No, a recursive recipe is one that (directly or indirectly) invokes _itself_. That's the whole point of recursion (literally, come back (=re) turning (=cur)). And don't call me Shirley.
- denton-scratch 3y agoOK, I should have thought a bit more before posting. But in that case the recipe for refried beans isn't recursive; there are no refried beans in the ingredients for refried beans, even if you grow your own beans as part of the recipe. I had a boss who liked to be obeyed immediately; if you said you'd do it shortly, he'd say "Don't call me Shortly". He wasn't very tall.