Ok. This IS homework ...

[Frederic Rentsch]

Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> Frederic Rentsch <anthra.norell at vtxmail.ch> wrote:
>   
>>  It was called a flow chart. Flow charts could be translated directly 
>>  into machine code written in assembly languages which had labels, tests 
>>  and jumps as the only flow-control constructs. When structured 
>>  programming introduced for and while loops they internalized labeling 
>>  and jumping. That was a great convenience. Flow-charting became rather 
>>  obsolete because the one-to-one correspondence between flow chart and 
>>  code was largely lost.
>>     
>
> The trouble with flow charts is that they aren't appropriate maps for
> the modern computing language territory.
>   
Yes. That's why they aren't used anymore.
> I was born and bred on flow charts and I admit they were useful back
> in the days when I wrote 1000s of lines of assembler code a week.
>
> Now-a-days a much better map for the the territory is pseudo-code.
> Python is pretty much executable pseudo-code anway
>   
Yes. But it's the "executable pseudo code" our friend has problems with. 
So your very pertinent observation doesn't help him. My suggestion to 
use a flow chart was on the impression that he didn't have a clear 
conception of the solution's logic and that the flow chart was a simple 
means to acquire that clear conception. I like flow charts because they 
exhaustively map states and transitions exactly the way they 
connect---solution imaging as it were. If they can help intelligence map 
a territory it is no issue if they don't map it themselves very well.