Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...@pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: >> prints appears to be the 2000th Fibonacci number rather than the 1000th. > I think you're mistaken. fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1, fib(3) = > 2 ... fib(11)= 89 ...
Whoops, you're right, I messed up my program while refactoring it. Sorry. > you like we can do it iteratively instead, which, as in haskel, takes > no perceptible time: I couldn't tell whether the earlier version with the expt 5 was a direct solution of the recurrence, or what. > 2. the result of fib(1000) is going to overflow c integer types Yes, it's a real shame that most cpu's these days don't have a hardware trap for int overflow. That would allow much safer programming for the large amount of code where the programmer expects to never overflow but can be caught by surprise. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
