Jim Phillips writes:

> Well, what do you think?  Maybe this isn't recursion at all?  But
> the perform chain looks like this:
>
> S141 -> S144 -> S141
>
> That looks like recursion to me.

(I tend to think of this as "circular calls" rather than recursion,
but that may be just me.)

I verified that this calling sequence (A->B->A) is supported
without warning of any kind, and it works just fine.

Tail recursion says RECURSIVE PERFORM with "Q"uestionable severity.
Linking, however, results in a runnable program that works fine.

> I went ahead and coded the program without recursion
> (it's clearer that way), but I still would like to
> know if I could have done it differently.

So, from an academic standpoint, you *could* have done it differently,
but I think we would all agree (in general) that "clearer is better."

--Glenn Cole
  Software al dente, Inc.
  [log in to unmask]

.......................................................................

Item Subject: cc:Mail Text